The used car salesman strikes again

[WilliamPitt]

"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."

- Obama, in Brussells, yesterday

An amazing amount of bullshit in one paragraph. We ran roughshod over the international community to get that war going. If an invasion and ten-year occupation isn't annexation, then nothing is. We totally, totally grabbed their resources, because the oil was supposed to "pay for the war," as I recall...and there were gas lines in Iraq for years after the invasion, because we were sitting on their oil like it was our own private piggy bank. And as for the state we left Iraq in, thousands upon thousands of people have been killed in the sectarian strife we left behind. They aren't making decisions about their future. They're running for their damned lives.

The used car salesman is trying to sell the lemon that was the Iraq war in order to avoid sounding like a hypocrite about Russia.

Utterly nauseating.

[The Magistrate]

1. The 'You Did It Too' Line Taken Against Criticism Of Putin In Crimea, Sir

Pretty much required some such statement from the President. I agree what he said is a stretch and a half, but it does not bother me much. I can understand why it was done.

[mindwalker_i]

37. I guess it bothers me because

it's just sort of another step away from dealing with our past as a nation. The Iraq war and everything about it was fucked. The financial crisis, along with the accompanying foreclosure heist, was a criminal conspiracy. At some point all this needs to be dealt with, and Obama's statements just pushed it further under the rug.

[The Magistrate]

63. Regarding Iraq, Sir, The Man Is Being Held Responsible For a Policy He Opposed

It is largely because he spoke out early against the Iraq war that he is President today.

I expect it rankles him a bit that, when he says Putin is wrong for seizing Crimea and threatening invasion of Ukraine, people say 'you guys went into Iraq, what's the difference?' Had he had his druthers, we would not have invaded Iraq. President Obama does, in fact, have all necessary moral authority therefore for denouncing Putin's imperialist actions.

But since he embodies the institution of government for the United States, he is subject to accusation based on that government's previous actions, and he must to some degree respond to such criticism, and do so without calling into overmuch discredit the government he currently embodies, in order to press the policy he thinks proper at present in the face of the current situation in central Europe.

Not really much else he could do....

[Divernan]

174. Obama's responsible for failing, while President, to prosecute war crimes/criminals

Yes, Obama was not President during the decision to invade Iraq & did not oversee the war crimes committed therein by US officials, military and war profiteers. However, having failed to prosecute those war crimes for the past 6 years, Obama has no standing to criticize Putin. His words are hypocritical in the face of his absence of actions.

[The Magistrate]

190. That Would Have Been an Extremely Dicey Exercise, Sir

Personally, I would have liked to see it. But I did not expect to.

One of the reasons we have orderly transfers of power in this country, and have had for a long time, is that it is long established custom that to lose an election or an office is not a hanging matter, not a thing that will end in prison rather than the lecture circuit. Even if real crimes were committed, it would be an extremely dangerous and unsettling thing for an incoming administration to set about prosecuting its predecessors on felony charges, and particularly so if those charges were rooted in management of affairs of state, crimes which require holding office to commit. Sooner or later, someone would dig in and say "I'm not leaving the White House just to go to jail', and the matter would be settled not by tally of votes, but by a quick canvas of the loyalties of various generals and police chiefs.

[Divernan]

274. You fail to show respect for the Rule of Law, Ma'am or Sir.

Commenting as a retired lawyer/law professor who has studied and taught international law in both the US and the EU, I'm aware of no legal code at any level of government which exempts elected officials, let alone military personnel or private contractors from prosecution. I'm amazed that you, labeling yourself as "magistrate", which according to modern usage implies you are a municipal level judge, write in reference to Iraq, "if real crimes were committed." And of course Obama's presidency has continued and expanded international drone strikes, i.e, judge, jury & executioner - even on US citizens; and assassination squads, such as the one which disposed of Osama Bin Laden. There is typically cultural resistance, denial and rationalization of war crimes, ex post facto. None of those change the fact that war crimes were committed. One hopes for national leaders to step up, admit fault, dole out appropriate punishments and let the healing begin. Such leaders thus earn the right to call out other countries on illegal actions.

Re Rule of Law, I refer specifically to IHL (International Humanitarian Law) as embodied in the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907; the 1945 Charter of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg and the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which codified IHL after World War II and marked the first specific inclusion in a humanitarian law treaty of a set of war crimes, i.e., the "grave breaches" of the conventions.

Each of the four Geneva Conventions (on wounded and sick on land, wounded and sick at sea, prisoners of war, and civilians) contains its own list of grave breaches. The list in its totality is: willful killing; torture or inhuman treatment (including medical experiments); willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health; extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly; compelling a prisoner of war or civilian to serve in the forces of the hostile power; willfully depriving a prisoner of war or protected civilian of the rights of a fair and regular trial; unlawful deportation or transfer of a protected civilian; unlawful confinement of a protected civilian; and taking of hostages. Additional Protocol I of 1977 expanded the protections of the Geneva Conventions for international conflicts to include as grave breaches: certain medical experimentation; making civilians and nondefended localities the object or inevitable victims of attack; the perfidious use of the Red Cross or Red Crescent emblem; transfer of an occupying power of parts of its population to occupied territory; unjustifiable delays in repatriation of POWs; apartheid; attack on historic monuments; and depriving protected persons of a fair trial. Under the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I, States must prosecute persons accused of grave breaches or hand them over to a State willing to do so. -

See more at: http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/war-crimes-categories-of/#sthash.W0OHnowG.dpuf

[The Magistrate]

287. I Fail To Show Respect For a Lot Of Things, Sir

People who lecture me on first principles while disregarding an accurate description of how things actually work are pretty low down the list, but can be found there.

"It is pretty dangerous for a human being to demand justice."

[Divernan]

319. The Rule of Law IS the first principle, the sine qua non of justice.

Interesting world view you have. Anyone who disagrees with you and presents facts, you label dismissively as "lecturing" you.

Another thing you fail to show respect for is gender identity, in that you continue to presume I am male and address me as "Sir".

Finally, what in heavens name does "It is pretty dangerous for a human being to demand justice." mean? I googled the phrase and came up with nothing re quotations. Are you saying Obama has been threatened not to prosecute war crimes? Are you saying it is dangerous for me to demand justice from my government? Please do clarify.

[grasswire]

390. that phrase bothered me, too

Dangerous to demand justice? Of course it is. That's the genius of our system of law; all are equal under it. And the bum may seek the truth and speak the truth with impunity under that protection.

Magistrate's phrase sounds like an authoritarian threat of some kind. No, sir magistrate, in America it is the absolute right of the citizen to demand justice.

[2banon]

488. I don't know with absolute certainty, but I intuit the implication to be "dangerous" to Obama's Life

and/or his family members. It is a conclusion I have been compelled to reach time and time again. a message in that regard must have been issued to Obama when he took office.

It's the only thing that makes any sense to me.

[wildbilln864]

631. exactly the way I have felt and feel.

No evidence of it of course. But what if the MIC are actually threatening the Presidents of our country and their families?
What would the remedy be without real evidence it was happening. I remember soon after President O was elected. He was always showing a cheerful smiling face but then suddenly he had a strange look. I wondered about it then. I thought I sensed anger and maybe even fear.

[KoKo]

490. See his reply #217....Nixon/Clinton I think it goes to what he was thinking as to why

little can be done, at this point.

I agree with you that we should have hoped to see at least a Commission ...maybe a Special Prosecutor. But, by now the MIC is so thoroughly in charge, none of that was or is possible. Even the "9/11 Commission" was so flawed that we are still living with the after effects of it which goes into the hypocrisy of his address. I know in GB there have been some pretty strong efforts to go after Tony Blair with special investigations and there was evidence that Blair and Bush colluded before the Invasion of Iraq. It got a lot of press and then sort of died away.

Obama should have found a different way to approach the Crimea situation than what he said which was so hypocritical shoving it into faces those of us on the Left who knew how wrong and illegal the Iraq Invasion was and the rest of the countries who are suffering under our drone strikes, Libyan Invasion after effects and the abomination of our paying "Insurgents & Military Contractors" with our tax dollars to destabilize the Middle East.

Anyway...thought you might have missed that insight about pardoning Nixon and what happened with Clinton. I hadn't thought about that in awhile..and that does fit into why Obama is constricted. But, it's a pattern he has that he doesn't seem to want to get involved in prosecuting the wrong doings he Could Get Involved With. Wall Street an the rest that causes us to wonder...what he is about.

Nice to see you around here.

[The Magistrate]

506. You May Recall, Sir, The Old Tag

"Where there is no remedy, there is no right."

Where there is no means to enforce, there is no rule of law, nor can there be. I am quite familiar with international humanitarian law, and understand that it is very seldom enforced, and when enforced, is enforced only against the weak and the defeated. Whatever may be written, and even employed at times as guidance in planning and executing various military actions, in point of fact there is no international law, no law of war, nothing which could be dignified by the phrase 'rule of law', and that because there is no mechanism for enforcing it on any and all violators, regardless of stature or power. The actual employment of international law is as one more tool in the politico-military armory, something which can be used to lay claim to moral high ground in a conflict, either by accusation one's opponent has violated it, or by insistence one is oneself abiding by it scrupulously.

No one, not you, not my grand-children's grand-children, will ever see a duly elected government in the United States indict leading figures of the administration it replaces for war crimes, even where these crimes are also crimes under Federal statute, and even where there is no reasonable doubt they have been committed. It is not part of our political and social custom and tradition, and that is not going to change. Nor am I convinced there would be much by way of good result if it were changed.

For the rest, I will leave you to contemplate the concept of just deserts, and a favorite line from old Mr. Clemens....

"I know of nothing against him save that he is a human being, and that is enough to hang any man."

[pangaia]

530. I just jumped in late here, after dinner, in fact.

What's with all this "SIR" stuff?
Sir SIR... "SIR."
I am trying to hear your points and the points of others, particularly Divernan. And I find strengths in both positions...

But I find that your repeated use of SIR, sounds a bit..pompous, a show of false respect, of insult.

You are intelligent, probably quite so.

Maybe just have your discussion........ it IS an important one, after all.

[Divernan]

536. My screen name, DiverNAN, identifies me as female, but he calls me Sir.

It's not a big deal - sometimes Magistrate addresses posters as "Ma'am" - but use of either title seems an affectation - like we're reading a Dickens penny dreadful. To the degree that it introduces an element of formality, that's better than some of the recently tossed around epithets. What I really would like to see from him or her is an explanation of what he or she meant in post 287 with that earlier quote" "It is pretty dangerous for a human being to demand justice."

[dreamnightwind]

564. I'm pretty sure it was innocent enough

and referred to potential danger to Obama or whoever stirs up the spooks' hornets nest, rather than any kind of threat to you. At least that's how it looked to me, and I've seen his posts for a long time on DU (I'm not defending his viewpoint, though, in fact I greatly appreciate your contributions here, there has to be some kind of accountability for wrongfully and dishonestly attacking and occupying, for 10 years, a sovereign nation, especially when we're talking about the responsibility of heading the most powerful military the world has ever seen, or our country's very existence is illegitimate).

Glad you clued him in that you're not a "sir". It's not that obvious from your user name, until you already know. I knew because I had seen an earlier post of yours in another thread.

This whole thing really shows how untenable our unofficial global police thing is. We're doing that, and have been for quite awhile, without any real international authority to do so. Some nations are cool with it, others aren't. Nobody asks the U.S. taxpayer if they want to be the world's police (nor if they want the target on their backs that being the world's police places there), they just make us pay for it, trillions, and they make damn sure we have no or few chances to elect representatives who aren't down with the global cop role.

Since it's not an official status, there are really no rules, and apparently no accountability either. We pretend to operate by existing international rules and treaties, but as we've seen over and over, we ignore them when we want to do something we can't get approval for, so we're just using them as a fig leaf over world military dominance. The multinational corporations, many of them originating from our country but no longer loyal to it or to its citizens, are highly dependent on our role to provide safe, affordable, and dependable access to natural and human resources everywhere on the planet, regardless of the wishes of people in other nations (or our own).

So, no official status, unapproved military adventurism, no accountability, but we're the cops so who is going to tell us otherwise? Sounds a lot like some of the police problems we have right here at home.

Then comes the interesting part, when some other nation tries to play the "they did it so I can do it" card. The gymnastics required to try to invalidate their actions while not invalidating our own show how wrong our entire geopolitical dominance really is.

The Iraq War was indefensible and in the eyes of much of the world it cost the U.S. an awful loss of moral standing. Obama needed to more directly acknowledge this and make some attempt at a truth commission, some mechanism to demonstrate accountability and show that we understand we misused our power, and that we won't continue to do so. Failure to attempt this in any way has left us where we are, without credibility, and looking around every corner to see who to invade next.

[Dragonfli]

567. He appears to have given you a hint, if not an answer

"I know of nothing against him save that he is a human being, and that is enough to hang any man."

I think, but cannot be certain, that the implication is one seeking justice will find oneself hanged for the shared crime of being a part of humanity. I think it is a snobby way to say if one lives in a glass house one should not throw stones. "It is pretty dangerous for a human being to demand justice." - "I know of nothing against him save that he is a human being, and that is enough to hang any man.

I don't personally much like the stench of false equivalency that one smells when admittedly flawed humans are considered equal to those that commit war crimes.

I do demand justice flawed as I am and do not fear facing a backlash of justice for meager crimes I may have committed due to my flawed humanity.

It is also possible he meant nothing at all but liked the way it sounded.
It is hard to fathom the enigmatic ones....

[KoKo]

576. My sense is that he doesn't want to go that far...that's he's

a cautionary person, who is reflecting on what he's seen in his life's experience. Which, frankly, ...these days...I can't fault him on, given what we "experienced" DU'ers have seen in our own lifetime from JFK on downward. Just saying. I don't believe we should EVER Give Up Trying to right these wrongs because I'm an idealist. But, I recognize that Idealism will only get one so far if there isn't a movement or judicial system who will take up our cause. So far one has not appeared which has the strength to undo what we've seen over these past decades.

But, that's just my opinion of what I feel he is cautionary about... which might come off differently to those of us who read him who are used to "one liners and snark" these days on the "DU" that we feel attacked 24/7 for whatever we post...and so sometimes we don't read careful or have time for nuance of a post.

[OnyxCollie]

610. Reminds me of someone

who used to address everyone as "Dude," regardless of gender.

Can't remember who it was. Some asshole probably.

[Control-Z]

611. I find it weird that in all the time you've been here

you're not familiar with The Magistrate's posting style. It is like CaliforniaPeggy's "my dear". We know and love them each for both the style and content of their posts. I'm sorry it bothers you. It isn't meant to.

[pangaia]

671. Thank you.

I don't always have a full view of things, in fact rarely.
While that 'phrase' does irritate me, it is MY problem. In fact, I almost deleted my post as being overly sensitive.
What he/she has to say is always thought-provoking.

[tomp]

668. it's really hard to take you seriously....

....if you (and clemens) can't find an actionable difference between ordinary human flaw and war crimes. I see just a bit too much of settling for "how things are" in these posts.

[The Magistrate]

669. Suit Yourself, Sir

"What other people think of me is none of my business."

[tomp]

706. really?! then why post at all? nt

[cprise]

459. "How things actually work" is just code for abuse of power

...the kind for which the powerful have no authority.

[bvar22]

377. Excellent!

Recommending Post #274 by Divernan

[mindwalker_i]

290. Yeah, it would be hard to do

However, we have laws against wars of aggression, and laws against torture. Part of that is that torture has been shown to not work, but also that it's damaging to the society that commits it. Arguably, we have seen the damage done to our society.

the damage done by NOT prosecuting the banks has created a very definite split in the legal system of individual criminals - non-rich people - vs. corporations. Personally, I'm afraid of the idea of getting a mortgage to buy a home because I'm not sure the bank will not just steal it from me. And there's no recourse if they do.

These two things together illustrate that while we have laws, they don't apply to certain people, and that severely undermines the whole idea of having laws. At the very least, it shows that laws aren't what they say they are - a law may say people can't steal, but really mean that poor people can't steal. Worse is the situation that laws exist, but can be applied at the whim of whoever is in power. We see that happening in how anti-corruption laws are applied against one political party. Issa is a screaming example. And it deepens a sense that the whole government, the whole system, is hopelessly corrupted and that people - in a democracy supposedly - really don't have any control.

Without that sense that we live by rules, that the rules apply to everyone, people will take what they can. An example of that happening is the religious people who own businesses feeling free to force their beliefs on their employees. If they have the power to do so, why not? Likewise, if a bank feels like foreclosing on a house so they can get more money, why not? That's the real danger in just letting crimes by important people slide.

[The Magistrate]

301. Everything Has Consequences, Sir

And indeed it is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain the fiction this is a democracy, if by that is meant a state in which what the people want government to do is what it does.

[mindwalker_i]

360. Yes, things have consequences, but some consequences are worse than others

Long term, the failure to prosecute things like torture of theft by banks has huge consequences. Short term, it was convenient. I can see why Obama did it. He really wanted to work on things that would help, and he didn't want his whole presidency to be bogged down in a bitter partisan fight. But now, he's getting that partisan fight anyway - Issa delivers. Also, he's kind of given the Repubs a pass, so they keep doing it (all the while going after Democrats).

Here's the reality we have to deal with: we're the masses. We can be arrested and put in jail in someone in power wants to do so. Often, they do, because it benefits them economically when for-profit prisons get their quota and the people in power get kickbacks. Also, if corporations want our money, they can take it. Have a house? BofA wants it? Bummer dude. Want to change the system? The corporations don't, because it serves them well, and they're people just like you, but will a hell of a lot more influence. We all know that's bullshit, but we also know that the politicians and people with money will come up with twisted logic to support whatever position they want, then they'll go ahead and implement that position. We'll sit here and take it.

[The Magistrate]

508. I Have No Quarrel At All With Your Description Of Present Reality, Sir

Personally, I would feel a lot better about our President and his prospects ( and ours as citizens and Democrats ) if I thought he had ever punched someone at any point in his life, but I suspect he has not....

[bvar22]

375. “We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things....

... Not because they are easy, but because they are hard.” ---JFK


Turning away from Doing-the-Right-Thing because it would be "difficult" to confront it
gives tacit approval to the initial crimes,
and only adds another layer to the hypocrisy.


"Hope & Change"---PBO



You will know them by their WORKS.

[grahamhgreen]

577. In my view, a dicey exercise is night patrol in Iraq. Not prosecuting real crime.

[The Magistrate]

582. Risking a Country's Political Functioning, Sir, Does Not Strike Me As A Slight Matter

It could very well go awfully wrong down the road.

[grahamhgreen]

584. That is exactly what you risk by failing to prosecute known corruption and criminality, IMHO.

[The Magistrate]

586. And I Think, Sir, You Dismiss Other Serious Risks

Whether I agree those risks are more serious than others does not affect my view that they are real, and that to be chary of them is a reasonable position.

[grahamhgreen]

588. I'm glad we understand each others position :-)

[GeorgeGist]

601. Awesome ...

Please tell us you're not really a Magistrate.

[The Magistrate]

614. You Seem To Enjoy Posting Pictures Of Conflagrations, Sir

Odd.

[theboss]

694. The beauty of the American system is that it is able to shake off periods of rampant criminality

I mean, we had a Civil War where none of the leaders of the losing side were hung. In any other country in human history, they would still be hanging people.

When I was in college, I saw a lecture by a historian who was asked to make a prediction about the future of the US.

He said, "There will be national elections where the losing side concedes without violence in 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016 and 2020." He followed up by saying that few countries in history could point to peaceful transitions of power over a regular period that far into the future.

There is value in that that outweighs the value of some kind of bizarre trial of Dick Cheney in The Hague.

[grahamhgreen]

705. I disagree. It's led to a corruption of our political system.

[joshcryer]

327. He never said he would do that.

This is a joke.

[Thespian2]

674. Thank you

Those who can not see the mistakes of Obama come out in droves any time he is justly criticized. Cheney and the Bush administration committed murder. Why does Obama shirk punishing them? I believe he fears being punished himself by the next administration for the murders he has committed.

[Divernan]

698. You're welcome, and welcome to DU

As per your history with the visual and performing arts, may I share with you my excitement that in June I'll be in NYC to see two imports from the UK: Kenneth Branagh's rave-reviewed production of the Scottish play, and Daniel Radcliffe in his also well-reviewed play by Martin McDonagh, The Cripple of Inishmaan (they brought the whole West End cast with them.) Many people know Radcliffe from his Harry Potter films. I've been quite surprised how few people know who Kenneth Branagh is or have any familiarity with his work. I've been a fan of his for decades. A great trip to anticipate in the midst of all the political insanity.

[ALBliberal]

259. eloquent

Perfect analysis of the President 's comments on the ill conceived Iraq war.

[stopwastingmymoney]

281. Well said

It really steams me when people say 'we did it too".

My response is: Who are you calling we? I did not support that war and neither did our president.

[sabrina 1]

712. It steams me too because we didn't 'do it too' we did much, much worse to the point that it boggles

the mind that anyone even thought such a comparison could be made.

The President voted to fund the Iraq War, he intervened to stop Spain's prosecution of the Bush Six for torture, a court that had jurisdiction to do so since some of their citizens were victims of this country.

Crimeans VOTED overwhelmingly to decide their own future. There was no invasion, there was an appeal from the people to Russia and if anyone doesn't like people telling the TRUTH about what is going on, that is irrelevant.

I remember when this forum was almost 100% FOR the prosecution of the War Criminals, demanding it, calling Congress. I remember when President Obama was asked during the campaign if his administration would prosecute war crimes. He did not say 'no', he stated that this would depend on whether or not there was evidence of crimes. Well, there has been, plenty of it.

He did oppose the war before being elected to the Senate. He should then have joined the few courageous souls who refused to vote to fund it, but he did not. That means he DID support it and lost the right to claim, as he did in his speech, that he did not.

I supported him partly because of his opposition to the war. Now I, like so many others, feel totally betrayed.

To be told here on DU that there is no expectation justice for major crimes committed by the rich and famous, is simply stunning. IF that is true, then the Bush crimes will look like misdeanors compared to what future 'leaders' will do knowing they are untouchable.

[Auntie Bush]

395. Well said and well understood. Thanks!

[kentuck]

428. And I would not be surprised if this message was not given to President Obama...

"We just postponed the ISS flight from yesterday and we may be required to remove the American from the flight if we cannot come to an agreement..." Huh?

[sulphurdunn]

541. If the godamn war was wrong when he opposed,

it remains wrong. He does indeed embody the institution of American government. and that government no longer has any moral authority in the world. It has squandered it all. There was plenty else he could have done. Not the least of which was to apologize to the world and promise not to engage in further criminal behavior like the invasion of Iraq. That would go a long way to reestablishing our moral authority for criticizing the Russians.

[sabrina 1]

639. All he had to say was 'I did not support that invasion' and then return to the US and start talking

to the DOJ about beginning the long awaited investigations of the Bush/Cheney band of war criminals. Starting at the bottom and working up.

The very fact that he has told the world the US is 'moving on' from war crimes, and when the Spanish Court, which had waited to begin ITS prosecutions of the 'Bush Six' to see if the new administration would handle it themselves, then realized that was not going to happen, began plans to continue its prosecutions, the US, as we saw in the Wikileaks cables, personally intervened to 'save' those criminals from prosecution.

THAT would have lifted the burden from the US. To let the Spanish Court start with the lower echelons, Gonzales et al. But that is not what happened, they were protected, and the world knows it, and so long as War Crimes remain unaccounted for EVERY US PRESIDENT will be faced with what President Obama is now facing, accusations of hypocrisy which are very, very hard to defend.

[The Magistrate]

667. Ma'am, Please Consider The Matter Seriously

No President of the United States is going to allow a foreign court, and I might even say particularly a Spanish court, to try members of a previous administration for crimes. It is simply not going to happen. Ordinary concerns of political practicality, which I am sure you are aware of and do understand, will not permit it.

[grasswire]

223. the associated issue is this:

When a Democratic president accepts (even grudgingly) Republican crimes, the particular issue is no longer a Democratic principle, and cannot any longer be used to campaign on a distinction between the parties.

Obama has lost, for us, several main Democratic principles. The party is weakened because of it.

[dreamnightwind]

565. +1

[AlbertCat]

240. it's just sort of another step away from dealing with our past as a nation.

He should have said Putin was acting just like the Bush Administration.... and we can't have that kind of crap going on again.

[ReRe]

399. That's right...

... had he used that language, the whole world and ALL Democrats (left & right Dems alike) would be praising him. He would have gotten a standing ovation. Rather, it's like the USA can go around the effing world wreaking havoc for decades at a time, and when the next pres comes in, all is forgiven and forgotten? Hello?

[Mira]

407. Well said. Seconded. n/t

[cui bono]

646. Exactly. Well said. n/t

[mike_c]

42. his mouth is full of putrid bullshit...

...in defense of crimes against humanity. I will NEVER forgive anyone who voted for the IWR, nor can I find any charity for its mealy mouthed defenders. Using it as the GOOD side of a contrast is disgusting. It bothers the hell out of me.

[The Magistrate]

65. Now There, Sir, Is A Reasoned Argument If Ever I Saw One

We do not always agree on matters, but I have always considered you someone whose comments were worth taking seriously. This is well below standard.

[JaneyVee]

70. Below standard is the new high standard on DU.

Apparently.

[mike_c]

114. it's not an argument-- it's a statement about my response....

I'm not going to engage in parsing spin and assigning imaginative mass to competing justifications. The ONLY presidential words I will ever respect with regard to the war against Iraq are "I'm sorry, we committed a crime against humanity, and we promise to bring those responsible to justice." Throw in "and I hereby resign and submit myself to custody" for those who voted for it. Never happen, you say? I agree. Nonetheless, I'm not going to let the practical impediments to justice make it all better.

[ballyhoo]

152. I don't see it that way........

Rather than ostensible attempted amelioration of what America did in Iraq, why couldn't he have just said. "Yes, in retrospect, the United States was wrong to have invaded Iraq. And now, Putin was wrong to have annexed Crimea. Two wrongs don't make a right no matter how you look at it."

Then he avoids a certain percentage of the people querying to others and themselves: Is he trying somehow to justify America's invasion of Iraq?

I said long ago that Iraq was America's Parthia. And this is unfolding as I and many others considered. But I diverge...

Just my thoughts, Magistrate. I voted for Obama twice. And the way things are today, I would vote for him for a third term. But, then, there are things I do not like. I view this as normal. Doesn't sound like some do...

[The Magistrate]

178. I Agree That Would Have Been a Good Approach, Sir

Possibly even a better one.

It would amount, though, to defending himself at the expense of the institution he embodies, and would simply open different lines of attack. I am sure you can imagine some of the things that would be blaring through the media coverage of such a comment.

[ballyhoo]

198. Well, maybe, but as someone who hasn't followed the America media

since Iran-Contra, it is hard for me argue your point. But you at least allowed my point. I think this may be more important than the Header Post message itself. If we can't debate a point without the Hatfields v/ McCoy horseshit, I mean, what's the point?

[The Magistrate]

204. I Would Expect, Sir

Coverage would be long and loud on the 'Obama apologies again for America, signals weakness to Kremlin strong-man" line, and that is something we can do without just now.

[ballyhoo]

206. Put that way, roger that--

[mike_c]

253. it would open different lines of attack because there is no good way...

...to polish that particular turd. The very attempt gets shit all over one's hands.

[Whisp]

333. Agreed. Obama is CEO head cheese of this huge corporation called The United States

He got the job and swore to take care of business and have it thrive as best he can, he cannot call the company out at present or when under a previous CEO.

I am looking forward to his book after he leaves office. Hopefully a lot of personal thoughts will come out and we will see the differences between being a citizen and being in charge are.

[VanillaRhapsody]

644. Yeah but there is still one big difference....we didn't keep Iraq....largely because this President

got elected.

As you know....the Bush gang had plans to NEVER leave Iraq....they had every intention to "annex the oil" from that country to boot. Because we elected President Obama.....we didn't go in that direction. What do you think Romney would have done...How about giving a little fucking credit where credit is due for once....

[ballyhoo]

670. Sorry, I dispute your header here. We own

Iraq and always will. When the final accounting is made and the US slips into redundancy, it will be because of many things, but none as prominent as Iraq. We didn't annex the oil because it couldn't have been done. The flower-wielding Iraqis would have blown up the oil wells themselves. Thank you for your time.

[VanillaRhapsody]

675. UH no we don't Obama is bringing home the last soldier from Iraq....

Republicans had NO plans to bring them home at all....they planned to keep them there indefinitely

So whatever gets you through the nite to cling to your narrative that there is no difference between the Democrats and this President and the Republicans and now Putin...your narrative is still wrong. This President is doing his level best to give Iraq back to the Iraqi's....that is most certainly NOT what Putin is planning to do with Crimea, is it? But far be it from you to give the man any credit at all. I know you would find "Presidenting" so easy if you were the one elected!

[ballyhoo]

690. The US owning Iraq has nothing to do with anything you

posted. When you kill between 500,000 and a million people in a foreign land, you own that land and its future endeavors forever, whether a Republican or a Democrat President destroyed the country. I know about owning other countries--I served time in Vietnam: where another US contrived war took place. Crimea wanted to go Russian except for the Tartars, and even some of them preferred Russia than Victoria Nuland's band of terrorists. AND, I would bet my bottom dollar the Crimeans will end up in much happier and in better economical condition under Russia than the Ukrainian basket case they were living under. But that is just speculation. Finally, a country being given back to itself by the country that ravaged it for ten years is not really much of a gift. It is more of a slap in the face. You apparently do not understand war, which is good for you. I understand it, and wish I didn't--

[VanillaRhapsody]

703. Actually QUITE the opposite...the President Obama has NO connection to Russia'a annexation of

Crimea and Bush's War in Iraq....a war he had no intention of walking away from EVER!!!! So you comparing Barack Obama to Vladimir Putin is ridiculous..Perhaps for Crimea's sake....Russian's will elect their own Barack Obama!

Trying to make that claim just proves how BADLY you would like to smear this President....its desperation at its highest.

[ballyhoo]

709. Smear him? I voted for him twice. I'm not into

projection, so this conversation is over.

[VanillaRhapsody]

711. Yeah right.....I don't care how many times you voted for him....

You voted for him....then what is your major malfunction....Iraq has been going on his entire Presidency.....weren't you too ashamed to vote for him the second time....weren't most of what you have in your craw about Obama and or the Iraq war happening THEN? What did you expect him to do...did you think he was going to radically and completely change his entire strategy over night? If that is what you thought....what does that say about YOUR judgement?

YOU expected miracles....YOU expected a "Savior" YOU expected "the One" YOU expected him to walk on water....You expected Sparkle Ponies and Flying cars! Since you didn't get the ENTIRE list of YOUR personal pet peeve issues addressed to your satisfaction President Obama didn't confer with you on all things foreign and domestic.... that means President Obama is a Poopy-Head!

[psiman]

248. Your Purity is a Shining Example to us All

I hope that I, too, can one day have the courage to sit at my computer and mewl ineffectually at everything that has ever chapped my hide.

Bravo, sirrah, bravo!

[mike_c]

260. a wonderfully crafted ad hominem, LOL....

Hat's off!

[Logical]

560. hmmm. nt

[sabrina 1]

173. There is another way to avoid people pointing out 'you did worse', not 'you did it too' btw.

It really is simple. Prosecute the war criminals. Only then can the US expect to point fingers without having fingers pointed back at us. Which is why we elected Democrats. Because we CARE about this country. It HURTS people who worked so hard to try to stop that massive crime, to see all of us sharing the blame or to see those we elected try to excuse it in our name.

I cannot imagine why that is so hard to understand. I opposed that crime and still do and care far more about the victims of the crime, the troops who are gone, the wounded, the troops who commit suicide every day because of it, the Iraqis, men women and children tortured, murdered, raped, while our government protects and defends the war criminals. It is beyond endurance, frankly.

And if never changing our views on this, over the entire period the crime has been in progress, makes us unwelcome now in the Dem Party, or in the minds of the leadership of the party, 'wrong', NO, WE WERE NOT WRONG AND ARE STILL NOT WRONG.

And there is just no rational defense of it all.

[The Magistrate]

192. I Will Take The Liberty, Ma'am, Of Repeating Something I Said Above

One of the reasons we have orderly transfers of power in this country, and have had for a long time, is that it is long established custom that to lose an election or an office is not a hanging matter, not a thing that will end in prison rather than the lecture circuit. Even if real crimes were committed, it would be an extremely dangerous and unsettling thing for an incoming administration to set about prosecuting its predecessors on felony charges, and particularly so if those charges were rooted in management of affairs of state, crimes which require holding office to commit. Sooner or later, someone would dig in and say "I'm not leaving the White House just to go to jail', and the matter would be settled not by tally of votes, but by a quick canvas of the loyalties of various generals and police chiefs.

[sabrina 1]

205. I see the dangers of prosecuting elected officials. I also see the danger of never prosecuting

War Criminals, and have to weigh which is more of a threat to this country.

Nixon resigned, rather than face impeachment. It did not destroy this country when what he did was exposed and he was forced from office. If anything, it made it better.

Your way ensures that criminals can run for office, use that powerful office to commit massive crimes without fear of consequences.

If as you say it would destroy this country to apply the rule of law to major criminals who have abused their power and the trust of the people, then something has gone very wrong with this democracy.

[stevenleser]

209. The solution is to send the evidence to the Hague and cooperate with them so that

accusations of a person or party engaging in a politicized prosecution cannot be made.

But a domestic prosecution of a prior President by the sitting President is fraught with the problems the Magistrate mentioned.

[BelgianMadCow]

427. You are right. So, when the US opted out of the ICC (and the current admin didn't rejoin)

that really said and says it all.

[The Magistrate]

217. I Aree, Ma'am: Often Life Is A Choice Between Poor Alternatives

I would, however, take exception to your calling this 'my way': recognizing what is and is not likely to change or be changed is neither choosing it nor endorsing it.

Your citation of Nixon illustrates the matter well. Mr. Ford's decision to pardon Nixon, not to prosecute him, was key to his resignation: Nixon received in fact no legal punishment at all for his crimes.

It might well have been better for the thing to have gone to the impeachment he faced, and resigned to avoid. That is the means for sanction against crimes of state committed in office by a President, after all.

One of the worst effects of the hounding of President Clinton by radical Republicans in Congress is that it has discredited the remedy of impeachment for a generation at least, and left our system without even a pretense of remedy for malfeasance in high office.

[KoKo]

321. Well Said... Recommend...Nixon/Clinton examples..

"It might well have been better for the thing to have gone to the impeachment he faced, and resigned to avoid. That is the means for sanction against crimes of state committed in office by a President, after all.

One of the worst effects of the hounding of President Clinton by radical Republicans in Congress is that it has discredited the remedy of impeachment for a generation at least, and left our system without even a pretense of remedy for malfeasance in high office."

[The Magistrate]

509. Thank You, Ma'am

I appreciate your comments, here and elsewhere nearby.

[grasswire]

236. there's a remedy for that

Immunity for the president and perhaps the vice president. Prosecution -- severe prosecution -- for any other officials who have committed crimes in that administration. Execution, perhaps, in certain circumstances.

The result of this for the last administration would be pardon for Bush and maybe even for Cheney, but firing squad for Rumsfeld, Feith, Rice, and the others.

[lumpy]

295. Oh sure that would work, but not very well.

[grasswire]

315. the current sweeping things under the rug...

...isn't working too well either. It's like a screwball dysfunctional family where no one talks about Uncle George's criminal behavior.

[lumpy]

335. Yes, I go along with that all the way.

[sulphurdunn]

535. What he said was laughable bullshit

and the European press kicked his ass for it.

[GeorgeGist]

597. Have some awesome ...

with your understanding.

[RandoLoodie]

2. dissemblers and prevaricators in 3 2 1 . . .

[bigwillq]

3. Hello.

Welcome to DU!

[RandoLoodie]

4. Why thank you!

[ProSense]

5. You can't be serious

"The used car salesman is trying to sell the lemon that was the Iraq war in order to avoid sounding like a hypocrite about Russia.

Utterly nauseating."

Are you defending Russia while distorting the President's statement?

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

There was in fact 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.

Obama did defend his own actions in Iraq: ending the war and leaving it a sovereign state.
HuffPo and those interested in giving Bush a pass love the headline: Obama Defends Iraq Invasion.

I mean, why the fuck else would anyone spin opposition to the invasion as defending it?

There is likely one other reason, but would anyone admit it: Thanks, Obama.

For once, the nonsense isn't winning the day except among some dead-enders.

Calm, Cool, and Collected, President Obama Schools ABC Reporter During Press Conference at The Hague
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024732240

That one went viral on Facebook.

Obama's role in the Iraq war:

The End of the Iraq War: A Timeline



http://www.whitehouse.gov/iraq


Enjoy.

[stopbush]

105. Bingo! We have a winner!

Methinks Mr Pitt has other issues these days that are clouding his judgement.

[Auntie Bush]

411. Good rebuttal!

[iandhr]

207. Nice to know some people here still can talk sensibly

[Gothmog]

556. 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]

657. Thanks ProSense for having brought some more

light on pitt's stink bomb.



http://www.whitehouse.gov/iraq

[rudolph the red]

6. Double down on a stupid comment.

Way to go!

[FSogol]

7. Unrec. You're right, something is utterly nauseating.

[Andy823]

20. +1,000,000 nt

[lillypaddle]

78. You got it

[berni_mccoy]

216. Indeed. Something stinks around here

and it isn't the President.

[NuclearDem]

8. This tu-quoque "IRAQ!" bullshit is just getting tiresome.

[Marrah_G]

19. Hi new person

Your comments are against DU rules. Just thought I would let you know since you are ...new.

[Cofitachequi]

24. Actually I'm not new.

And I know the rules.

[steve2470]

38. you know about the 5 hides rule, right ?

Some people have gotten blocked for a while because of it. Just a friendly FYI.

[Marrah_G]

43. Oh, what name did you post under before?

[awoke_in_2003]

261. The first thing I thought, too...

I smell zombies.

[cui bono]

648. Salty zombies? n/t

[quinnox]

49. So, whose sock are you?

[Capt. Obvious]

30. Welcome to DU

[BeyondGeography]

10. A apt title for all of your posts

[LordGlenconner]

132. +1000000000000000000000000000

The egomaniac is strong in this one.

[Myrina]

423. You're just now noticing that?

[Whisp]

471. ~~~+++++++•••+++++++~~~

[Autumn]

11. Prepare yourself Will. But yes, Iraq was a lemon

Rec.

[Supersedeas]

305. lemonade

[Autumn]

464. No way in hell lemonade can be made out of what Bush did there.

[Puzzledtraveller]

12. No fear!

[Autumn]

35. Will had no fear fighting the lies they were telling to get their war on.

He does not strike me as a person who would be fearful now. to you and I will join you in your for Will.

[ProSense]

43. Well

"Will had no fear fighting the lies they were telling to get their war on."

...he definitely has a selective memory.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024613725#post14

[Autumn]

136. Well

Someone has a selective memory and a habit of posting irrelevant stuff. * You really didn't look at the link you posted did you?

http://www.amazon.com/War-Iraq-What-Team-Doesnt/dp/1893956385

That's a lot more than what most here ever did.

[sharp_stick]

13. Time once again

to start using the Ignore feature.

I've got to learn that sometimes it's just not worth fully emptying the septic tank every three months.

[closeupready]

450. +1. Some people here are really useless.

All drama, all the time.

[spanone]

14. what did romney say?

[quinnox]

15. The Obama-bot signal will go out on this one!

Prepare for incoming!

[ProSense]

36. The "bot signal" is the OP. n/t

[Bobbie Jo]

39. Apparently the Bat-Shit signal went out first

on this one.

[LordGlenconner]

115. +1

[sheshe2]

200. Nailed it! nt

[SidDithers]

420. Boom goes the dynamite!...nt

Sid

[one_voice]

467. +10000

[woo me with science]

16. You are correct, the Valkyrie-like propaganda swarm notwithstanding. nt

[MineralMan]

17. Doubling down on calling the President ugly names

isn't my idea of DU discussion, Will.

What's next?

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. This us not for you, but the swarm

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”


Teddy Roosevelt said this during World War 1. It truly still applies today.

Oh and they will not be happy until either you shut up, or go away.

[LuvNewcastle]

26. Thanks for that, Nadine.

[BKH70041]

40. And someone said they hadn't seen any of these here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4728184

And just look. Someone wanders off the reservation and they come crawling out of the woodwork.

[Scuba]

21. Kick for the ugly truth.

[Blue_Tires]

22. I thought you were referring to my local congresscritter

who really *is* a car salesman...

[Capt. Obvious]

23. So who has the jury results?

[GeorgeGist]

602. Here you go ...

[truebrit71]

25. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The Emperor has no clothes....

Just sickening...."We did not grab its resources for our own gain"....really? Fucking REALLY???



This will surely bring the cheerleaders and sycophants out in screeching harmony as they howl and bay at the gall of a non-believer challenging Dear Leader....

What is TRULY nauseating is that these are the very same people that USED to howl in outrage when Bush the Dumber did the same things, but somehow now find them not only justifiable, but acceptable...

Fucking hypocrites all...

[lumpy]

363. Anyone who puts Obama in the same flea bag is not seeing things in true perspective.

disgusting

[bvar22]

396. Nobody "PUT" Obama in the "same flea bag".

The President jumped in there all by himself with his comments yesterday.

[lumpy]

481. You did. Too bad you misinterpreted his statements.

[zappaman]

460. "dear leader"

the ONLY people I have ever heard utter that phrase is by those on the right.

[dilby]

27. Not sure what Obama was supposed to say.

It's not like he ended the war and brought the troops home the second he took office, he continued the path that was already taken and did not even apologize for it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. Oh, that's OK. The Pope is all too familiar with CYA statements.

[Whisp]

31. Pathetic.

and utterly nauseating, at least you got that right.

[truebrit71]

33. So, to be clear, you are okay with Obama justifying Bush's war, yes?

[Whisp]

41. bullshit. Iraq was a dumb war, Obama has said that countless times

and he was not 'justifying' it -

the crazed rw and bagger element are putting that out to cover Bush's insane murderous asscrack. Too bad others are following blindly, like reading the Bush/Cheney anti-matter Tiger Beat edition.

[truebrit71]

54. Um...yes...he absolutely justified it...

...by saying it WASN'T a land grab like Putin in Crimea, but in order to "free" the Iraqi people...Which is a HUMUNGOUS pile of stinking bullshit as has been proven in the 11 years since bush first invaded...

[ellennelle]

154. um no he absolutely did NOT justify the invasion

he only justified the route the US took to get there, going through international channels, etc.

not to put too fine a point on it, but many folks here need to actually take obama's manner and approach as example and - yes - inspiration for actually stopping long enough to look at potential consequences for every step he makes

like many here, i was salivating to see the bush admin skewered for all their many crimes. but after giving it considerabel considered thought, i had to ask myself -

to what end?

now, no one is more outraged by what those people did to our sense of decency and our reputation around the world, not to mention the direct victims.

but look at it this way: obama came in with goodgawda'mighty, a rather dizzily spinning array of loaded plates, not to mention an agenda he hoped to put forward that would benefit you and me and our fellow citizens.

hence, lily ledbetter, close quantanomo (which only congress stymied), aca, etcetcetc.

do you think any single one of those would have gotten anywhere had his administration gone after the previous one for their crimes?

nope. not one. nada.

if you think the populace is divided now, think what that move would have done. mind-boggling.

there are many moves obama has made that have upset me, but when it comes to these big ticket issues like russia, i'm in awe of how carefully he measures every word that comes out of his mouth and every step he takes.

he is the furthest thing from the dry drunk cowboy wannabe i can imagine.

be careful to examine what you're suggesting for signs you are condemning obama for not being that mywayorthehiway tyrant we are all so glad has slunk into the recesses of of bad repressed memories.

for now; at some point, perhaps next admin, we can review those war crimes, etc. including what might be considered obama's own (one of the things i'm not so happy about; but hey, what would you do if the military brass marched in to the oval office and laid out an intercepted plan? go in with tanks? ignore them on principle, risking maybe hundreds or more american lives? or approach it strategically? just sayin').

but for now, i cannot begin to express how comforted i am by the measured and careful wisdom this man exhibits in the clutch. he's pretty damn amazing, and i know for sure i would not begin to have a prayer i could do any better, and know of no one on the planet who could top him.

[truebrit71]

164. Aaah...so you like playing twister too??

I see...he didn't justify the invasion, just the way we justified getting to the point where we invaded a sovereign country that hadn't attacked us and then we stole all of their shit...justifiably of course...



Hey, I wouldn't play poker with the guy either, but that doesn't mean he hasn't sold us a bill of goods on many, MANY occasions and on many, MANY issues...

[ellennelle]

397. far better flexible than rigid

less breakage, all the way 'round.

[Blanks]

512. The American congress voted for the invasion (sort of), and...

Dubya formed his coalition of the willing.

This is close to how we are supposed to declare war and other countries contributed to the war effort.

I was about as opposed to the war as you can get, but President Obama is right. He is on solid ground to point out the differences between our actions in Iraq and Russia's actions in Crimea. We did not act unilaterally, and if pointing it out to Putin improves the chances of him modifying his behavior - then I think its a good move.

I think that this would be a really, really shitty time to agree with Putin.

[cui bono]

650. Say what? You do realize that BushCo lied and presented knowingly false evidence to the UN, right?

Are you intentionally justifying BushCo's war crimes or was that an accident?

Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. BushCo claimed he did and that was our reason for picking Iraq to attack. They fabricated "evidence" to justify it. We killed over 100,000 innocent Iraqis, thousands of our troops got killed, our troops are doing way to many tours with not enough time home. Then we tortured the Iraqis and stole their oil. You think that was okay?

Wow. This is exactly what that other OP was about, people really are justifying the illegal invasion of Iraq just to defend Obama. Incredible.

Disagreeing with what Obama said is in no way agreeing with Putin. That is a very simplistic way of thinking. People can easily disagree with two different people at the same time.

Obama could just as easily have said Iraq was a bad idea, he voted against it but that two wrongs don't make a right. Better yet, he could have done something about prosecuting the war criminals.

[Blanks]

682. Yes, I'm aware of all that.

It was utterly fucking despicable, but we didn't just line troops up on the border and annex.

The fact that they (Bush/Cheney/Powell) deceived the 'coalition of the willing' in order to go to war, does not put it on the same level as Putin's actions. If Putin wants to annex, he can make the case with other nations (even deceive them) - make them believe Crimea did something wrong and work with those other nations to bring about change.

That's the issue here: Is Putin justified because we did the same thing? No, he's not justified because we didn't do the same thing.

I'm with the president on this - what we did in Iraq (while despicable) is not the same as Russia's actions in Crimea.

I'm in no way justifying Bush's war. I'm merely pointing out that it is different than Putin's war.

Y'all need to get past this whole prosecute Bush/Cheney/Powell bullshit. I realize it seems like a good idea, but the arguments AGAINST are reality based - while the arguments FOR are a revenge oriented exercise in futility.

The impeachment of Clinton was politically costly to the republicans - if the democrats pursued something like that it would take decades to recover from the political fallout.

[cui bono]

696. Prosecuting war criminals is absoutley NOT "a revenge oriented exercise in futility".

If Nixon had been prosecuted it would have sent a message about how the rule of law applies to everybody. A lot of the people who were around back then wouldn't have survived to help in the war crimes of BushCo.

If BushCo had been prosecuted it would have sent that same message and gotten a lot of criminals out of our govt and military and would have restored people's faith in our govt. As it is a lot of people have given up on it because what's the point? If they can lie us into a war, and this is common knowledge at this point, not a conspiracy theory, and get away with it then our govt IS above the law after all. Not at all what the founding fathers had in mind.

For anyone, you or the president, to minimize the war crime is to enable more of this in the future and to diminish our standing in the world community.

You can't possibly think the impeachment of Clinton is on any level the same as prosecuting BushCo for war crimes? Your comparisons are astounding. That again is minimizing the gravity of the situation. We are talking about war crimes. Not a blow job.

And while you're comparing apples to oranges... how many people died in the Crimea annexation? How many people, people, not just American troops, died in the Iraq War? How many people were tortured in the Crimea annexation? How many people were tortured in the Iraq War? Did the people of Crimea get to vote for the annexation? Did the people of Iraq get to vote for the Iraq War?

Minimizing it absolutely is justifying it. And calling the prosecutions "a revenge oriented exercise in futility" is enabling it. Do you think we should just toss out our entire judicial system then?

[Recursion]

632. Right, and since we annexed Iraq, your point is justified...

oh... wait...

[truebrit71]

673. No, you're right, we just stayed there for 11 years and fucked it up beyond recognition...

...annexing it would have had a much better outcome...

[Recursion]

678. Seriously? You think annexation would have been better?

That's possibly the craziest thing I've heard in months.

[truebrit71]

679. I'm sorry, how many tens of thousands were killed in the annexation of Crimea...??

...get back to me when you have a number...

We "liberated" Iraq back to the fucking stone age....Crimea voted itself back into the arms of Russia without so much as a single J-Dam being used....Which one caused more damage?

[Recursion]

681. We don't know yet; it just started. Chechnya isn't a good omen.

Russia doesn't have some magic formula to quell insurgencies. Now, if the ethnic Ukrainians and Tartars don't end up starting an insurgency, and the Ruthenian Ukrainians don't turn irredentist, everybody might come out of here blood free. Here's hoping.

[truebrit71]

684. Non-one knows what the future holds on anything...

...I'm still not convinced that Pootey-Poot is done on his European Annexation Tour 2014, but we shall see.

One thing we do know is that he didn't try polishing that turd by going to the UN with fake anthrax and the false threat of non-existent WMD's...

IMHO both situations could have/should have been dealt with differently, but the turd polishing by Obama was totally unnecessary...

[Recursion]

685. Didn't he express "concerns" about Russians in Estonia?

It will be interesting if we wind up with NATO going right up to a new Greater Russia.

[lumpy]

283. Maybe you interpreted Obama's statments about Iraq as justifying Bush's War without truly

realizing that was not Obama's intent. Some of us had that knee-jerk reaction to Obama's statement until we read it a few times, reflected on it and came to realize it was not a justification for the Iraq War. I felt that Obama could have used this opportunity to emphasize the fact that Bush has been thoroughly castigated by the bulk of Americans and that he, President Obama would agree that it is a blot on US foreign policy as well as shame on this country conducted by and using false claims by the Bush administration.
But I am not Obama's speech editor.

[truebrit71]

285. Why would he not just simply say neither actions were right?

Much simpler, no need for parsing, just a straight forward response...

[lumpy]

331. I agree with you. Why he didn't use a more direct approach emphasizing how he and most

Americans believe Bush's War was an unforgivable act against the people of Iraq baffles me. He missed that opportunity to speak for the US American people re.Iraq.

[Rex]

372. I'm baffled too. Two wrongs don't make a right. End of speech.

He could have made it so easy just by stating the obvious imo.

[lumpy]

394. I agree. However I don't agree Obama commited a 'wrong'. The Iraq part of his speech was not

on spot and neglected to reflect thoughts of the American people as well as his own re. Bush War. Hardly a justification of Bush's action against Iraq

[Rex]

404. Well he did say in his own words he opposed the war.

I read that and believe him. The wrong came from a prior administration that illegally invaded a sovereign nation based on lies and falsehoods. Obama simply could have said the Iraq war was wrong.

He inherited this mess and I don't think it is wrong of him to tell the truth about the BFEE and their war of aggression. He could even point out how he opposes this type of foreign policy and THEN point out all that is wrong with Russia's invasion.

IOW, I don't expect Obama to own the Iraq Invasion. People that do must be in denial about who started the dam thing!

[Kahuna]

526. He didn't justify it. I heard what the President said, and no way did he

defend it.

[Gothmog]

557. Agreed

The legal term is that President Obama distinguished the two situations

[Logical]

580. You whine a lot! n-t

[Whisp]

581. You follow me a lot!

You like me, you really really like me.

[LuvNewcastle]

32. K&R

[Skinner]

34. Disappointed to see you doubling down on calling the president names.

No, I'm not telling you to stop. I just figured you might want to know that some people don't appreciate seeing that here. Just in case you care about that sort of thing.

[NuclearDem]

46. "some people" *hint hint*

[BainsBane]

50. I'm hoping midterm election rules kick in soon

Where we all go back to supporting Democrats.

[AgingAmerican]

131. Name calling aside

We can't support the president when he makes statements like this one. Nor should we be silent of same.

[freebrew]

221. +1000 nt

[Bobbie Jo]

266. The name calling is not an "aside."

It's the freaking point.

[AgingAmerican]

291. No, it isn't the point of the OP

But it is a distraction.

[Bobbie Jo]

297. It was quite intentional. nt

[AgingAmerican]

299. Well, duh

nt

[Bobbie Jo]

303. Pointless. (nt goes here)

[AgingAmerican]

306. Read the op

It makes a very sharp point. Of course those who don't want to discuss it fixate on the title, but the OP itself is right on point.

[Bobbie Jo]

312. Oh I read it....

I just don't rely on someone else to tell me what I read. Get it?

What you're trying to impose here is your opinion, nothing more.

[AgingAmerican]

316. And your opinion of the OPs point is....

??

[Bobbie Jo]

322. I suppose you missed it while you

were busy telling the rest of us what it meant.

[Kahuna]

524. Statements like WHAT!? No way did he condone iraq. He just said that..

at least we didn't do to them what Russia has done in Ukraine. That's it. Anybody who expected the President of the USA, any president..to say..Yeah, I know it was an illegal war, but two wrongs don't make a right..is missing some brain cells, IMO.

[PowerToThePeople]

148. TOS

Vote for Democrats.
.....
But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

Since the President is not a nominee in the 2014 or 2016 election cycles, I do not understand how this rule would change anything in regards to supporting or not supporting his actions...

[freshwest]

498. It'll be too late by then. And supporting Democrats on DU will never happen again.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110215862

Because the dripping disdain and contempt will have done its job and those who may have wanted 'more Democrats elected to public office' will be too ashamed by the constant derision to speak out or vote.

All of this disregards the GOP and others doing massive damage in every venue, taking away the rights of people and openly promoting oppressing the poor and minorities, and doing their best to shut people out of elections.

But the knife in the hand of a 'friend' cuts deepest to leave a wound that will never heal.

The resulting apathy is what fascists count upon to increase their power, normalize their rule and implement economic stratification which benefits the 1% while the only instrument the people had to resist, the government organized by the people, is left fo wither on the vine as people are too cynical to do their part to keep it alive. And some wonder why they have no say anymore, as when they had a chance, they didn't exercise their say with words of support or encouraging others to resist the real agents of repression.

And because they didn't really believe in democracy, or the people, they believed the words of the corporatists who own the media or saw they were powerful, and refused to take their own power at the voting booth. It's not a matter of attacking people only, but the ideas they work to bring to fruition, and there are always the one who pile on because they see it's popular, and discard the ideas they claim so vigorously to support.

Many see the power wielded by the neo-cons, and have not realized it was against our ideas and our candidates that they were fighting. War always transforms the nation waging it so that it is impossible to go back to the world as it was before, even though Obama has tried. We are ceding the ground to them here by going after Democrats, as planned by the purveyors of opinion.

Their attempts to overthrow the engine of our rights is not an outrage here, but any word or deed is used to attack the government and all members of change, shows support for the status quo benefitting the powerful, even though it's on the subconscious level.

And people want to get along, so the more they hear disdain and contempt, even without facts or logic or substance, just emotional appeal, they know that's the way to survive in the world or an online forum, and they repeat what they read.

Basic psychological training. It's been working for the status quo for over 40 years.

[BainsBane]

540. I fear you're right

and with so many people opposing the Democratic Party and its representatives, it makes it easier for RWers to stir up trouble. I believe that is part of what is happening. No, I don't mean the OP. I know he's a Democrat, but I am disappointed by his hyperbole.

[Bobbie Jo]

589. Excellent post. nt

[SidDithers]

700. Well said...nt

Sid

[ProfessorGAC]

55. Also, No Feedback Within The Thread from the OP

This is just rhetorical bomb throwing.

[Cali_Democrat]

71. The OP threw a bomb....and disappeared into the night.

Pretty pathetic actually.

[beveeheart]

300. Rhetorical Bomb Throwing

You got that right, Professor.

[one_voice]

469. Yep, drop the turd and watch it stink up...

everything. Pathetic.

[steve2470]

58. Well-reasoned discussions of facts are welcome...

avoiding hyperbole. As always, including context and perspective helps.

[babylonsister]

59. I would be one of them.

Probably won't do any good, but thanks, Skinner.

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. I am shocked you forgot to capitalize the word President

Or follow the archaic (only the NYT uses it anymore,) Mr. President.

I will quote Former President Teddy Roosevelt to you too.


“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”


He wrote that during a very ugly period of US history. A few folks even went to jail for being loud mouths and speaking against the President. Oh Mr. Pitt's words are really mild here. I don't know if they teach that in school anymore. But one of my instructors in graduate school, he was a specialist in the period in question, wondered aloud if the only reason Teddy remained out of jail was he was a former President who thought WW I was a really bad idea, for the US to intervene that is.

We are now living through almost sixteen years of a toxic environment that while not quite that bad, it's bad enough. The early years I used that with conservatives, now with liberals (truly conservadems). Some things never change. And one of the things that never should change is that Presidents are not kings and should be critiqued, especially when they step in it.

[Brother Buzz]

451. You really, really need to locate and dust off your trusty Stylebook

[zappaman]

466. !!!

[Brother Buzz]

484. More evidence she sneeks a peek at her 'Iggy' list and actually learns something

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024735661#post74

[zappaman]

486. Of course.

Some folks just LOVE attention.

[Art_from_Ark]

649. Teddy Roosevelt was actually a war hawk

who was highly critical not only of Wilson's official neutrality, but also of other groups of Americans (especially of German and Irish heritage) who were speaking out against potential American involvement in the war. Here's what he had to say to a Congressman who voted against the 1917 war resolution:

http://www.raabcollection.com/theodore-roosevelt-autograph/theodore-roosevelt-signed-early-world-war-i-theodore-roosevelt-tells

[Brother Buzz]

658. And how does that pertain to English grammar rules for capitalization?

capitalization

Avoid unnecessary capitalization. Capitalize proper nouns. Common nouns such as "university" and "president" should be capitalized only when used as part of a full name for a person, place or thing: The University at Buffalo is a research institution. The university is among the nation’s top research institutions. President John B. Simpson served as an administrator in California before coming to Buffalo. The president is a native of California and completed his bachelor’s degree there.

[Art_from_Ark]

659. Your post I was replying to had nothing to do with capitalization

It was a quote ascribed to Teddy Roosevelt, which was "explained" earlier in this thread.

This was the link you provided:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024735661#post74

[pecwae]

477. Capitalization is only

necessary if using the name; ie President Obama. In your reference to Roosevelt the word 'former' also is not capitalized. During my years of professional journalism I relied upon the AP Style Guide.

[Phentex]

77. I know you're a tolerant guy...

but trolls have been banned for less. In many cases, it isn't the actual topic that brings about a banning but the pure disruptive nature they bring to DU.

These posts are disruptive to healthy discussion. And the previous OP was downright nasty.

[Marrah_G]

98. When people see something wrong and just nod politely, nothing changes

No government in history has ever changed because people just sit back and nod politely while hoping the people in power will do the right thing.

To pull our country to the left requires people to be outspoken and demanding of those in power. It requires people to stand up and yell loudly when they see things being done wrong.

[lumpy]

381. When my kids used to yell loudly, be demanding and lippy they didn't get the response they were

expecting.

[Marrah_G]

385. We are not children and the government is not our parent

[lumpy]

432. That's why we shouldn't act like children

[nadinbrzezinski]

437. Why do you think we got things like the right to vote for women

or the civil rights legislation? I know, people sat quietly and said pretty please. NOT

[AgingAmerican]

138. The title of the OP is unsavory

But the content of it is true. The Iraq war should be called what it was, a money laundering clusterfuck.

[Phentex]

416. which is why

I said it's not about the topic

[Capt. Obvious]

147. Be careful what you wish for

[Union Scribe]

90. I wouldn't phrase it like the OP has

but I understand the jaded tone. Even while saying he opposed the Iraq War, Obama framed its legacy as a triumph of democracy for the people of Iraq and the US as good faith diplomats in pre-war build-up. That sort of disingenuous politicking is maddening in its denial, and maybe worse its adherence to Bush-era spin of this utterly failed and utterly indefensible war.

[Wait Wut]

97. That's the word I had in mind.

Disappointed. There are better ways to make a point.

Thanks for your input, Skinner.

[Hissyspit]

107. I'm disappointed to see the President saying those things.

Last edited Thu Mar 27, 2014, 05:08 PM - Edit history (1)

Much more significant than what some guy writes on a discussion forum.

I understand what President Obama is trying to do, but really, REALLY badly done. Feeds into the worst types of revision on Iraq that is going on.

[lumpy]

449. I am disappointed the President didn't do a good job in phrasing his response regarding Iraq War.

I don't believe he was trying to justify Bush's War based on his often stated opinions of that war.
He should of amplified his opinion of that destructive action by the Bush administration.

[uppityperson]

199. Thank you Skinner for weighing in on this.

[msanthrope]

210. Skinner, when is enough, enough? nt

[Bobbie Jo]

264. I have the same question.

When, indeed?

[msanthrope]

277. Ultimately...this is the administrator's sandbox, and I will abide by any decision they make. But I

think certain behavior is troubling.

[Bobbie Jo]

294. Of course we always do....

It just seems some are provided more leeway to disrupt than others.

This behavior is the very definition of disruptive and divisive. Not to mention, intentional.

[msanthrope]

318. Well...I think we have it within our power to voice our discontent. All alerts go to admin, and

while I do not expect admin to read all of our posts in GD, I suspect all alerts get read.

Even if alerts do not produce a hide, they get read. And I think admin is perceptive enough to differentiate between alert stalking, and genuine concern for what this site contains.

On a side note.....I think we are witnessing an audition.

[treestar]

338. Interesting

Audition for?

[msanthrope]

351. Sweet, sweet Omidayar money abounds in the leftie blogosphere....you'll note the

defections from FDL?

[Bobbie Jo]

352. That would explain much....

Quite the demonstration of some mad skillz in divisive, shit-flinging.

No doubt highly marketable in this arena.

Taking your wisdom to heart, our Administrators are quite capable.

[Spazito]

401. "I think we are witnessing an audition", I completely agree...

and the recent flamebait threads are probably going to be added to the resume as references.

It is nauseating to see DU being used in this way, imo.

[Number23]

566. "On a side note.....I think we are witnessing an audition."

Ahhhh... coming from almost anyone else here I wouldn't know if I would believe this was true. But coming from you, I am much more inclined to believe it. And that sure as hell explains the really moronic, over the top, embarrassing, and beyond juvenile language coming out of The Pitt lately.

What's so funny is that I agree that the president's language is disturbing on this issue. Yes, I understand the context but I think that anyone that even PRETENDS to provide justification for the illegal clusterfuck that is the war in Iraq needs to sit down somewhere. I understand that he was always in opposition to this war and that this was in response to Putin doing the "but, but you did it too!" But I would have liked more than anything for the president to say "yeah, we did it and it was wrong. But so is Russia invading Crimea."

Having said that, this OP is still stupid beyond all measure. In "auditioning" for the folks in GD that absolutely LIVE for this divisive pointless bullshit (see the rec list) and whatever else is out there, the OP has torpedoed anything he ever had resembling credibility.

[msanthrope]

569. There is little money for the "Left" to make during times of effective Democratic

governance...so the generation of revenue depends on the dissemination of FUD. There's sweet Omidayar money to be made..and you don't get it without auditioning and bringing an audience.

[Caretha]

672. "Effective Democratic Governance"

ROFLMFAO

You have a very myopic view of effective democratic governance. Unfortunately we are in the midst of the disintegration of our Democracy. Now if you wanted to rephrase that to read "effective Corporatocracy Governance" you might have a valid point.

[Liberal Veteran]

348. "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others". -nt

[FSogol]

573. Same here. This is an important midterm year.

Do we need this level of attempted vote suppression?
Do we need the constant bashing of Democrats? (name calling is hardly criticism)
Do we need the daily FUD?

[lumberjack_jeff]

370. This place needs more principled disagreeement and less pandering to prevailing views.

I often don't agree with Will. In this case, I think the Teddy Roosevelt rule should apply.

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

[msanthrope]

374. I agree there should be criticism of the President...but calling him a "piece of shit" and posting

incorrect information about the ACA is not that.

[lumberjack_jeff]

379. Like I said, I disagree with both the content and the style on this topic.

Disagreement isn't something I come here to escape.

[msanthrope]

392. I relish disagreement. I just wish for smarter participants. nt

[Hissyspit]

492. Hungry for blood, hunh?

I've seen posters using almost the exact phrasing that Dick Cheney did to attack Snowden. Should we get rid of them, too?

[msanthrope]

497. We aren't on Snowden Underground. I've yet to read anything in the TOS that

requires support of a coward charged with espionage...let me know when that changes.

[Hissyspit]

499. TOS allows for criticism of Dems.

[msanthrope]

502. And? If you think calling someone a "piece of shit" is merely criticism, then may I call you

that?

[Hissyspit]

505. I didn't say that.

But I guess the administrators can decide that for themselves.

[msanthrope]

528. You are defending the man who used that term against the President. If that's what you see as

merely "criticism" then why can't I call you that?

[Hissyspit]

529. "You're defending the man..."

That's one way to look at it. There are others.

I don't care what you call me.

[truedelphi]

513. Maybe that will change when us skeptics are thrown into

Re-education camps.

You can consider Snowden a coward or a traitor, if you want to, but without him, the American public would have remained in the dark about what was going on.

[msanthrope]

527. Um no...some of us actually read the NYT in 2006 and aren't unaware of what FISA empowers

the government to do. As for reeducation camps, you think FEMA will be running them?

[truedelphi]

539. What does reading the NYT about the NSA back in 2006 have

To do with anything? We were all so resigned to life being crap back then.

Then Mr Hope and Change came along, and naturally the expectations from members of the public became greater.

[msanthrope]

542. Sigh....one does expect one to know the history of what one is railing against.

How, precisely, was President Obama to implement Section 702, as was passed by Congress in 2008, pursuant to the 2006 disclosures?

[truedelphi]

710. If he was upset about Loophole section 702, he could easily have taken to the

Bully Pulpit and urged us to call our reps and Senators and urge them to re-consider that section of the law.

But so far, he has only taken to the bully pulpit twice. In the summer of 2013, he took to the bully pulpit and tried to convince us that we need more war against the people of Syria (As if the secret funds that backed the rebels are not enough.) Only 17% of all Americans wanted that war.

And now of course, he is trying to get us to see that we have to stand tall against Russia.

He loves the notion of "spreading democracy around" to other places on the globe that are threatened. But tragically, he is not so definite about American citizens having democracy here in the USA.

And I wonder if you would even be able to offer up the citation of Section 702, without the fact that Snowden, Greenwald and The Guardian made a point of broadcasting that information last summer. I don't think that section was widely talked about back in 2006, and even if it was, Google does a good job of hiding seven year old history behind more current news.

[cui bono]

652. And some of us are aware that it has gotten much worse under Obama.

He was supposed to bring us Change. I didn't think it was going to be in the wrong direction on something so serious as this.

[Cha]

647. Thank you.

[msanthrope]

688. The false equivalence of the leftie hero of the week with Barack Obama

is frankly pitiful...... I don't find it coincidental but as soon as we have a black president, we have the farthest fringe Left upset. Since the beginning of this presidency Barack Obama has refused to act in a manner that people like Greenwald, Snowden and Jane Hamsher find acceptable. He doesn't act as they think a black man and black president should act.

So is there any surprise we have disaffected white men as our new leftie heroes?

[Cha]

702. I never want to hear another fucking thing from these worshippers about Pres Obama's

supporters and their "cult of personality".. Not when they're so freaking entrenched at the altar..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024738811

[Kahuna]

525. At the very least, another time out would be appropriate. nt

[Logical]

550. Fucking alert it or quit your whining! Jesus, begging Skinner? n-t

[msanthrope]

552. Am I not allowed to post to Skinner? A bit touchy, no? nt

[Logical]

555. Then alert it Einstein! And quit whining! n-t

[msanthrope]

563. I changed my Einstein avatar, but nice to know you keep watch! I am sorry you've taken umbrage

at my posting to Skinner.

[WilliamPitt]

241. I call it like I see it, sir.

Rather than fret over the use of this term or that term, I'd be interested in your opinion on the president's comments on the war you and I spent the better part of a decade resisting.

[Cali_Democrat]

251. President's comments on the Iraq War? Well here ya go:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4327360

You're welcome.

[Ohio Joe]

310. The shame is that you do not 'get' that it is your terms that are the problem

Allowing yourself to be so blinded by your anger that you begin talking about the President in the same terms as repugs, freepers and teabaggers is something many will not agree with... repugs, freepers and teabaggers are enjoying it though.

[WilliamPitt]

317. Terms.

If George W. Bush had stood up and said we worked with the international community, we did not plunder Iraq's resources, and gave them free will to run their own country (paraphrasing Brussels), the roof would have come off this joint. And you know it.

Well, President Obama said it, and I called him on it. If the feelings of a bunch of people who treat politics like a playoff game between the Giants and the Eagles get hurt in the process because of the language I used, well, that's what they call in Wisconsin "hard cheese."

I'm going to call bullshit when I see bullshit, as I have done in this place since 2001, and I am going to make use of all the terms in the lexicon to do so if it helps even one whit to underscore that wrong is wrong, no matter whose lips it passes over.

Once upon a time, we shredded politicians who lied about Iraq, using language far less polite than mine. Because it was the war that mattered.

It still does.

[msanthrope]

336. You called the President a "piece of shit." Therefore, you've done what Virginia

Woolf found unpardonable...you lost objectivity. You lost the edge that makes a political writer a persuasive success. You lost the distance that separates good writing from bad.

That's unfortunate, Will. I hope you get your mojo back.

[dreamnightwind]

572. Objectivity does not exist

The only honest writing is writing that is honest about the point of view the writer brings to the discussion. The best writers know this and make no pretense to objectivity.

[Cha]

643. He says he "calls it like I see it".. too bad he's blinded by his own ignorant hate.

[Kahuna]

707. The hypocrisy is..Let me break it down...Who did pitt support and embrace..

in 2004? I think everybody knows that it was John Kerry who actually voted for the invasion. No hypocrisy there. And! Does pitt think John Kerry wouldn't say exactly the same thing that PBO said. Yet, I can't imagine pitt ever calling his hero Kerry a used car salesman. You're right my sister..he's just a petty hater. And haters gonna hate.

[Ohio Joe]

405. I might buy that if you started this over his comments on the war

I might also buy it if you called bullshit where bullshit was instead of only where you want to see it.

I'm not buying it.

[JVS]

546. I highly doubt that assessment.

I suspect that those upbraiding Will Pitt for his terms would also take issue with a more gently phrased criticism of policies. The terms are merely an easier point to attack.

[Ohio Joe]

561. For some, that is certainly true...

Just as there are those that do nothing that post anti-Obama screeds day after day, there are those who will support everything. Both of those are minorities though... I believe I hit it right on the head for the majority though... You may believe what you wish.

[Skinner]

368. Here's the problem.

The polarizing language about the president makes a good faith discussion on the merits extremely difficult. You are a smart guy, and you knew that echoing the insult that you used in the previous shitstorm would get exactly the response you got. I didn't particularly appreciate the last shitstorm, and I'm not going to get much utility out of this one either. This one thread isn't the end of it -- there are going to be a half a dozen other threads that get started over the next few days to rehash the appropriateness of calling the president names.

Obviously, you received a lot of blowback for your last thread, and you are receiving a lot of blowback for this thread. I am not so naive to think that you or anyone else would actually back down in the face of that kind of resistance -- to do so would feel like admitting weakness. And I know you're not going to back down simply because the administrator of DU expressed his distaste for insulting the president -- here on DU I am The Power, and a good progressive can't be seen to be backing down from Speaking Truth. I get that.

I'm just hoping that maybe next time, when you or anyone else on DU is thinking about starting a thread in which you insult the president, you think about those of us who don't really appreciate it. I'm not telling you what to do. And I'm not trying to score points here. What I'm trying to do is simply to share a piece of information with you: Some of us don't like seeing the president insulted. What you choose to do with that information is entirely up to you.

[nadinbrzezinski]

378. Will you extend that rule of not insulting the President

when we inevitably get a Republican in the WH? Or will the rule be, it's ok to call a Republican a used car salesman, but not ok when a Democrat holds the office? (Looks back at the eight years of Dubya, when we called him well Dubya, Presnit, used car salesman, and those where the mild ones)

Because you know what? This is why some of us are seeing quite a bit of hypocrisy here.

And do not worry, some of us really do not start threads anymore, and it has a lot to do with this precise hypocrisy. We really do not feel like tilting at windmills. (oh and that word is guaranteed to bring forth personal attacks from the happy band of cyberstalkers I got)

And I was right, the swarm is coming out.

Nor do I expect a response from you.

That is ok.

It is what it is. Why Alexa continues to drop



Yup the swarm is out, but I will even provide you with an early example of using used car salesman

msanger Donating Member (737 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 07:30 AM
Original message
George Bush - Used Car Salesman!
You and I know that bush is a liar, but it may be hard for the general public to accept that - in part because they seem to accept his facade, they seem to like him. Now, don't get ballistic on me, you and I know what is behind that smiling face and the back slap and giving reporters nicknames.

But it may be hard for people who are't as obssessed as you and me to see past the facade.

That is what is so wonderful about "George Bush - Used Cars Salesman." The used car salesman is a perfect fit. They appear nice and friendly and chummy AND they stab you in the back. They sell you a lemon.

So maybe we should start spreading the word about The Worlds most powerful used car salesman.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x969517

[msanthrope]

389. Nadin, we are on a partisan Democratic website. With a TOS that has a stated purpose of

electing Democrats.

Admin is guilty of hypocrisy? How so?

[Whisp]

446. I know! I think this kind of comment is the biggest !WTF! reaction I

have ever had to a post here on DU.

That poster has said this numerous times - but I suppose all of us who are trying to inform of the difference are on ignore and the rest are just fine with it as long as Obama gets a shit kicking.

[msanthrope]

448. I want an explanation of the "hypocrisy" the admin are guilty of. I think that could be

interesting. Seriously....I want an explanation of that!

[1StrongBlackMan]

713. I would say the hypocrisy ...

is in full display and can be easily found; but not in Nadin's reference. Rather, in the question, who else could insult this Democratic President in the graphically insult language as Will has, and still retain their posting privileges?

[msanthrope]

714. Indeed. nt

[tammywammy]

402. After calling DU a cesspool

I don't think you have much of a leg to stand on here.

I didn't notice you slowing down in your posting of threads lately. For goodness sake since you've starting just posting pics and crap you find on Facebook you've never had more DU Recs.

[zappaman]

476. To be fair

She also said she had more respect for the guy who ran FR, than she did for Skinner.
So, at least there is consistency I suppose.
Oh, and she called out Skinner's wife too.
Lovely.

[giftedgirl77]

503. Now that's impressive...

[Rex]

514. Hmm...I thought it was that the admins were all Third Way types.

I get my nadinisms confused. There are so many to um...ponder.

[alcibiades_mystery]

517. Silly! Those weren't call-outs. That was LOCAL JOURNALISM!!!!

Stop being a bully.

[BeyondGeography]

413. Poor Dubya? The only one complaining about this form of "hypocrisy" is you

This is a partisan site for Democrats. Why do you keep making this inane point that Republicans should be accorded the same level of respect as Democrats here and why does that even have to be explained to you?

[nadinbrzezinski]

417. No it is not just me that sees this as a form of hypocricy

care to read the rest of the thread?

It is not just me.

But if we are going to prevent people insulting the President, it should be the office, not the person. This means, regardless of occupant, you do not hurl insults, and do not call either man a used car salesman. Of course, you are also asking an editorial writer not to do what is in the fine tradition of editorial writers going back to oh Washington. Do not, I repeat this, do not, read editorials from the civil war, for example. They will make you blush. Trust me, this one is mild.

I know, that is a fine distinction many here do not understand.

One of multiple reasons I keep real meat out of this place anymore.

[lumpy]

440. Too many 'editorial writers' inject their own angry 'nose out of joint' opinions neglecting

the use of calm reasoned debate. A good editorial should be an attempt to change people's minds or inspire them to use reasonable judgment in coming to a conclusion, a show of blatant resentment doesn't quite do it (in most cases).

[nadinbrzezinski]

444. Well that is why it is a fine editorial writing tradition in the US

why you are free, and I encourage you, to ignore anything Mr Pitt writes if this angers you. There is this tool called the Ignore Poster button, I encourage you to use it.

Myself, I am not a fan of his writing, but that goes back a while, more like a few years. I recently unsubscribed from Truthout as well. And I am hardly a friend. But I am highly annoyed by this shut up, we don't like you, and think of the feelings of the President tone I am reading here.

Granted, it is the same tone why I no longer write anything meaty here, and I truly avoid doing that. I am bothered by that tone of pom poms regardless of who does it. As I told another poster bellow, the US is hardly a mature democracy. Posts asking for the banning of a poster people do not agree with, or trying to shut people up (succeeded with me mostly), are not the sign of a mature democracy. They are though, signs of competing cults of personality disguised as partisanship..

You have the tools, use them.

[lumpy]

463. Mr. Pitts writings do not anger me, I believe his opinions do result in irrational anger with

unreasonable thought. I agree with most here that Pitt does not have to be banned for his opinion of Obama. Pitt believes that Obama is not performing as Pitt expected and he has made his dislike quite evident, as that is his right.
I don't use the ignore button because I do like to know where a writer is coming from on certain issues. I try to stay away from anger, after all these years I've learned that anger can be self destructive, although I will plead guilty to getting pissed sometimes.

[nadinbrzezinski]

470. Your believes are yours

but I will repeat this, if this is something that you find to displease you...

And I will add, I have yet to hear of ONE president, starting with Washington, who faced zero criticism.

There are many valid reasons to be critical of the present administration Suffice it to say, I will refrain myself from actually writing any of them on DU. Mostly I do not believe this place cares for any of that. But that is a toxic environment that is being created. And when the next REPUBLICAN president gets sworn in, then we will see the same vitriol you are right now being annoyed with, being practiced. I find that somewhat appalling.

[lumpy]

487. I don't give a tinkers dam if Obama's policies etc.are criticized. I do give a damn when the

use of invective and unwarranted accusations are used in place of reasoned criticizm. Yes probably the same sort of vitriol will be thrown at a future Republican. That is not my intent, however, to spew it all over the internet, even if I think those same vitriolic thoughts.

[nadinbrzezinski]

493. Invective goes as far back as Washington

and partisans usually take exception to it. Yup, this is old.

Two Presidents dealt with it by passing laws limiting speech.

[BeyondGeography]

442. First, if you want to claim any integrity at all in this matter, "piece of shit used car salesman"

is the term that pre-sold this thread, not "used car salesman."

The problem, if you're running this board, isn't bruised feelings, it's behavior that turns it into a colossal waste of time, like this conversation, for instance.

[nadinbrzezinski]

445. If this bothers you so much

1.- Why are you wasting your time?

2.- Use the ignore button. Serious.

[Whisp]

454. ''I keep real meat out of this place anymore''...

[zappaman]

472. OMG

[hfojvt]

482. that becomes the trouble though

when Bush was President, we could not understand why people kept supporting him.

The question is, how to convince people to stop supporting him? Our usual answer was to insult the pathetic, worthless SOB. And for some reason, that never worked.

The same is true now though. Some people here do not like to see Obama insulted, but others here believe that he DESERVES a whole heap of insults. When he pisses us off, it is hard for us to help ourselves.

And yet, for some reason, our invective is never convincing to the true believers. Hell, a double generous heaping of facts does not seem to convince the true believers.

Maybe I need to read Hartman's book again.

[nadinbrzezinski]

483. And a few others.

I know that I no longer heap insults on pols, and trust me, at times it is tempting. But I also know facts do not matter to the true believers. They really don't. It matters little if it is your local Head of the School board, the Mayor, or the President. And that is regardless of party

[Kali]

543. no rule to extend

reading comprehension, you should try it

hypocrisy? insulting repukes on a DEMOCRATIC website vs DEMOCRATS on a DEMOCRATIC website
that is not hypocrisy.

However, continually berating this place while at the same time spamming it with nonsense could be seen as hypocritical.

maybe the iggy list works for him better than it does for you.

[BainsBane]

562. DEMOCRATIC underground

Did you notice the sign on the way in?

[steve2470]

410. you nailed it

I asked Mr. Pitt a question, and I'm still waiting for his answer:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024734511#post181

181. questions

1- Did you write the President or send him an email with your critique ?

2- Did you also tell the DNC your critique ?

3- Do you plan on protesting outside the White House ?

4- Did you contact your state Democratic Party with your critique ?

Personally, if I was as annoyed as you are with what he said, I would at least send an email to the WH. At least.

I know many here will say that all the above are ineffective wastes of time. Posting on an internet message board is more effective ?

[Ikonoklast]

590. Doing all of that will not help you get a job writing Obama-bashing tripe elsewhere.

Think of all this as just part of resume building.

[steve2470]

591. so so true

It's telling he's ignored my question. I'm sure he's seen it, thanks to the "My Posts" tab.

[sheshe2]

439. Thank you! n/t

[Gormy Cuss]

458. Why not, as an administrator, tell him and others to quit it?

The level of civility here is abysmal and IMHO it is thwarting good discussion of the issues.

[Cha]

594. Precisely.. "Some of us don't like seeing the president insulted." There's enough of

those cheap pot shots spread across the net.

[Billy Budd]

408. you are able to see the sales job and are blunt in your observations

Similar to Billy Budd who was blunt in confronting wrongs on board the Bellipotent. We are on board that ship now if you live in this country...

The sales job by POTUS is beyond Iraq because the use of US military to achieve political goals, as in Iraq, is almost a cliche its that routine. The sales job is the fiction, I regret its fiction I wish it was real, that the US overseas acts out of motives different in quality from other Nations.

This is how William Blum puts it:

"The greatest myth concerning American foreign policies is the deeply-held belief that no matter what the United States does abroad, no matter how bad it may look, no matter what horror may result, the American government means well. American leaders may make mistakes, they may blunder, they may even on the odd occasion cause more harm than good, but they do mean well. Their intentions are always honorable. Of that Americans are certain."

Your observation cause cognitive dissonance with that myth...

[RandiFan1290]

308. "some people"

Need thicker skin.

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

314. I am an old military person...

and was taught to respect the office of the President. I believe that calling any President a derogatory name is wrong. Republican or Democrat.

I will always respect the office, maybe not the man/woman serving.

That said, we were able to call the previous President almost anything we wanted with no repercussions.

We will be able to call the next Republican President anything once again, I hope it is a very long time from now, but whatever.

We should hold ourselves to a slightly higher standard and stop any name calling of our President.

Just my humble opinion.

[1000words]

346. The president has been called worse, from better people.

Name calling aside, I'd like to know your thoughts regarding the point he has made.

[Liberal Veteran]

355. Isn't that sort of the point?

By taking the provocation approach, the OP has undermined his ability to make a point.

Very sad for him.

[1000words]

365. I understand the point perfectly

Rather straight forward, in fact.

[cprise]

447. Yes, we've all been wondering

...why this site is suddenly crawling with un-moderated comments and insinuations about how Iraqis are "better off", America has more humane imperialism, Juan Cole is a whackjob, and loads of similar unsupported conservative blather.

These problems are only going to intensify when the presidential campaign of Mrs. Walmart--an Iraq War supporter who hires PNAC neocons to the State Dept. even in this era of Obama--shifts into gear. Hillary ignored even major European news outlets in the run up to the war, which makes her an unfit jingoist.

As a former PFC'er, I recognize the inability of the politicos here to abide by principles, favoring the party line or hero-worship instead. DU still has this reputation, which is why it is cited/linked a small fraction of the times that DKos is.

[1000words]

489. ...

[Corruption Inc]

628. Excellent point, it's what a lot of people are thinking

It makes a ton of Sense.

[hrmjustin]

523. Thank you for your two replies in here.

Name calling takes away from the argument.

[MrMickeysMom]

532. I'm surprised to see your decision to speak for anyone other than yourself...

I believe you'll find plenty of evidence as to who is and who is not in favor of calling out the president for the manner in which the OP did.

So, I think we need to discuss it, and I for one already can figure out what you have thought you might be better to say. Short of hurling insults amongst member of DU on different "sides" of the Democratic leadership, we stand to do more to move this really hurtful and uncomfortable conversation by letting it takes its course, of course, rules abiding.

It's only inflaming it, to say "some people don't appreciate it". Case in point… right after your post, the pile-on comments ... from some highly recognizable people here who surely must be disappointed by an actual opposite opinion. Imagine that. I already did.

So, unappreciated as it may be, there it is… and we'll be better in the end.

[LadyHawkAZ]

538. Thank you, Skinner, for taking the time to say this n/t

[Logical]

547. I think the owner of the board posting what you posted means "You better stop or else". nt

[Number23]

570. Happy to add my name to the list of people here sick and damned tired of

seeing these types of attacks on the Democratic president on this web site.

[Cha]

592. Thanks Skinner.

[cui bono]

651. Disappointed that this is the only thing I've seen you express your disappointmet of on here.

[KoKo]

45. It was a "throw it in your face" to so MANY of the people who supported him,

worked hard to elect him and voted for the "Hope and Change," and an end to these undeclared wars for resources under the guise "Bringing Freedom and Democracy" to Dictatorships who were in fact our Puppets.


Bush II could have made the same statement you quote. That President Obama would take this opportunity to poke a stick in the eye of those of us across the USA and Europe who marched against the Invasion of Iraq,( and kept protesting for years in DC and West Coast and holding vigils in small towns and cities over the USA).. who watched days of magnificently articulated efforts of Senators Kennedy and Byrd (who practically filibustered to stop the Invasion) along with the noble efforts of the hundreds of thousands of those who signed the petitions hand delivered in a last ditch effort to the UN by Move On. org to try to stop the Invasion/Occupation....well.

His hypocrisy was APPALLING!

I don't go along with your "Used Car Salesman" description of him. But, I might get there eventually.

[polichick]

53. "Throwing it in your face" seems to be sport in this WH...

from the first choices of advisors and Rick Warren right up to this episode. WTF?

[truebrit71]

102. Rick Warren was the very first notification that we'd been sold a bill of goods...

...and he'd only just taken the oath of office...

[treestar]

349. Now you're taking as aimed at you in some way?

Like he went out of his way to say that just to disturb his critics from the left?

I think you're fighting an imaginary war with him.

[UtahLib]

47. UGH - trash, again. nt

[stg81]

48. Why do you keep breaking the DU rules by purposely provoking everyone here?

[bobduca]

118. alert it, and please cite the rule violation

[Logical]

551. Alert it of quit whining! n-t

[cui bono]

653. If I were you I'd worry more about your own 2 hidden posts you got so soon after

joining DU.

[Phentex]

51. So don't vote for him again!

So happy 2016 will put you out of your misery...

[stg81]

52. Trashing President Obama is against the DU rules - a banning offense.

[grasswire]

257. welcome to DU nt

[cui bono]

654. Says the one who already has 2 hidden posts in their first 2.5 months here.

You seem to have quite an agenda on here. At least 2 posts in this thread I've seen where you are worried about Pitt and DU rules and at least one other where you claim he will be the demise of the Dem Party next election. What was your previous user name?

[G_j]

56. for those who were not around

Will was relentless in searching out and compiling the many, many lies of the Bush admin. going into, and during the Iraq war. His work was a tremendous service.
I believe a lot of his greatest critics today, were not around back them.

[Marrah_G]

61. agree

[BKH70041]

64. So he was A-OK as long as he said what tickled their ears.

My, my, my.

[G_j]

79. ugh..

if that is what revealing the truth means to you.

[BKH70041]

106. Oh, I'm in agreement with you.

He said things in the past that this board likely unanonymously agreed with, and that was good. Now he says things many don't agree with, and that is bad.

So for some it's not so much what he said as who he said it against. Had he called someone they didn't like a used car saleman and pointed out his dislike for what they said overseas recently, that would have been OK. In fact, they would have cheered and danced. But he didn't, so it's not.

So yeah, it's very clear. Truth to many here is what supports what they already want to believe anyway. Very clear.

[G_j]

122. now I get your point

Yes it is true.
& when Bush recently stated he was "comfortable" with his handling of the Iraq war, he was of course loudly ridiculed and condemned here.

[lumpy]

478. The truth is that Obama condemed the Iraq war; he neglected to stress that truth to his

audience.

[BeyondGeography]

67. Impossible...that's the new Will's photo underneath his post

[nadinbrzezinski]

68. Yup

I remember

[bullwinkle428]

75. For those unfamiliar, he literally did WRITE A BOOK on the subject:

http://www.amazon.com/War-Iraq-What-Team-Doesnt/dp/1893956385

[G_j]

201. I own a copy

it will remain a valuable resource.

[Myrina]

429. Some of us were.

And we saw how he used other people's work and didn't give them credit, essentially plagiarized DU'ers posts into his own posts/articles, and regularly put on a display of narcissistic behavior rivaled only by Bush himself.

This is just another in an apparently endless series of "look at me!" tantrums.

[Whisp]

686. Excellent point, Myrina. I almost forgot about that part of how the book happened.

Where others on DU put time in for research

(this was back when DU was a great source of information and the only bona fide pieces of shit were rightfully the Bush admin)

and it got snapped up and used by the OP. And now he is lauded as some great Best Selling Author that we should bow down to and forgive his irrational spewing because, he wrote a book man!

[mrchips]

57. Your Hatred of the President

Is palpable. No surprise here.

[840high]

76. Truth is not hatred.

[Bobbie Jo]

93. Teabillies are all confident in their "truth" too. nt

[phleshdef]

228. Its not truth, the OP and anyone else saying Obama is defending Iraq is a LIAR.

Hide all my damn posts, I don't give a fuck. I'm calling you folks what you are. LIARS.

[840high]

545. "You folks"? I'm calling

you a dreamer.

[treestar]

364. Twisting and spinning is not "truth."

[Marrah_G]

88. Your hatred of Will Pitt

is palpable. No surprise here.

61 posts since 2001, 2 hides in 90 days?

[nadinbrzezinski]

92. I like pretzels, how about you?

Hmmm nice catch

[Puzzledtraveller]

268. about as much as I like

graham for anything crackers, I bet his sock is somewhere around these parts too.

[Rex]

129. There is a LOT of that going around doncha'know!

A LOT of people suddenly showing up after years and years.

[mrchips]

184. I Don't Hate

Pitt. He called a severely wounded vet a tool. I took exception to that. A jury decided that Mr. Pitt should not be criticized for his hackery. This president stated his opposition to the war in Iraq, while describing the conduct of foreign policy since he was twice elected, that included not only his administration's ending of our involvement in Iraq, but the fact that this country under his administration was not coveting that country's resources. Mr. Pitt seems to think that Dick Cheney is still running the White House. The president gave a considered response to a biased reporter's question. Mr. Pitt let's no opportunity to blast and demean the president. One wonders why he doesn't join the Tea Party, or FAUX News.

[Marrah_G]

187. LOL okay........

[rep the dems]

293. Why is that so unreasonable?

I guess Will Pitt is allowed to make all the absurd claims he wants uncontested but if anyone calls him out for being a jerk then THEY'RE a problem?

[cui bono]

655. Because of his postions? Or do you not bother to grasp the content of his posts?

[rep the dems]

691. Whose posts? Will Pitt's?

If so, I grasp that he routinely attacks the president on faulty grounds. I guess you don't?

[cui bono]

697. Routinely attacks the president on faulty grounds?

No I don't agree with that. Sometimes his attacks are right on the money, with no faulty grounds.

[Whisp]

474. The hate is directed toward Will Full Ignorance. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

212. Always a nosh....

[MrMickeysMom]

544. You might re-evaluate your definition of what you say is "hate"...

… because I see it quite a bit differently.

My idea of "hate" is what the Bush administration, run by PNAC and programmed by DICK Cheney, did to millions of Iraqis, after elevating the filthy rich to a super-elite class who do not pay their fair share of taxes. I'm pretty sure I'd get a whole lot in this thread to agree the that logic.

OTOH, when I express my disgust for what William Jefferson Clinton did (no… not Monika) by continuing the "free" trade agreement of of GHW Bush by endorsing NAFTA, I called him worse than a used car salesman. I still feel that way. I have little respect with the policy that went through during some Democratic administrations.

That's my voice, and my voice is heard as an American and as a Democrat. I'm mainly a Democrat BECAUSE I can do that, as many of the cats who cannot be herded are want to say.

Tolerance seems to have limits in this and other threads over what is rightfully and wrongfully being done. The fact that there is criticism like this has nothing to do with "HATE" and more to do with a turning point that WE MUST DISCUSS.

I will not accept the "hate" card.

[cui bono]

656. +1

[ballyhoo]

60. Simply excellent.

[Bobbie Jo]

87. Welcome to DU.

[ballyhoo]

159. Thank you...

[Bobbie Jo]

172. NP

Enjoy your stay.

[Voice for Peace]

66. Your used car salesmen posts are nauseating.

[Marrah_G]

69. You can always put him on ignore

[treestar]

353. Or we could put no one on ignore, so we know what is happening to the site.

[nadinbrzezinski]

74. Trash thread, better yet ignore poster

And you won't see them.

[MineralMan]

89. Not everyone just ignores what they dislike, Nadin.

For many of us, seeing everything that is posted on DU is important. If we don't, we can't comment.

If I were ignoring this OP, I would not know with what disdain he regards the Democratic President of the United States. I do know that, though, since I've seen him call that President very ugly names twice, now.

It is entirely possible to criticize a statement made by the President without calling him ugly names. It's done all the time here on DU, and by many DUers I respect.

The only saving grace is that Mr. Pitt did not add the "piece of shit" tag to his tired "used car salesman" line.

[Voice for Peace]

113. thanks

[MineralMan]

121. Well, I don't believe that poster will see my reply.

but others will.

[Scout]

180. i saw it, thanks n/t

[sheshe2]

215. ^^^^This^^^^^

Thank you, MineralMan.

[MineralMan]

235. You're welcome.

I've never seen Ignore as a means to control my view of the debates on DU. If DU becomes a place I don't like, I'll just leave the site and find another one.

Someone on DU, and I can't remember who it was, suggested that posters of thread starting posts should be able to block a list of DUers from replying to their post. Now, if that was the rule here, I'd be gone in an instant. Political debate is an important part of the political process, and requires, even demands, that voices in disagreement be heard and seen.

Ignore has its uses, of course. If someone is making personal attack against another DUer on a consistent basis, Ignore can be very useful, I suppose. I don't use it, but I can understand why others might.

But, to Ignore those who disagree with you seems really, really silly to me. Why participate on a discussion forum if you can't deal with disagreement? I've never understood that.

[phleshdef]

229. Ignore is for cowards.

[MineralMan]

237. I would not go that far.

In some cases, particularly where someone chooses to use Ignore on people who make a habit of attacking you, it makes sense. It allows the person to continue to participate in the ongoing discussion.

However, to Ignore everyone who disagrees with you seems cowardly to me. Why bother to even be on a discussion site if you simply ignore all voices that disagree with yours? That seems silly to me.

[phleshdef]

238. I don't need to hide someone to brush them off.

I can just say "meh" and go on or refute them if I feel like its worth it.

[MineralMan]

258. Right. That's the best approach, I think.

[Voice for Peace]

108. thanks

[LordGlenconner]

133. Iggy

Isn't that where you put anyone who you are afraid to debate?

[pamela]

575. I agree.

[nadinbrzezinski]

81. Use ignore poster

And you will be fine

[moriah]

85. It works remarkably well. n/t

[rudolph the red]

86. thanks

I would be banned in a heartbeat if I made similar comments. Why is he above the rules?

[nadinbrzezinski]

320. PFFFSSSS he is not above the rules

and I will say this, why were those same words "used car salesman" ok when used with Bush? Hell I used them. I also used Dubya and Preznit.

There are multiple reasons I no longer post long essays here, or news items that might be relevant to the California group.

It is the swarm and the personality cult. And that cult wishes for Pitt to go away as well. And do bring the smelling salts, do not, I repeat this, DO NOT read editorials published in US Papers between 1859 and 1865, and in particular the NY press and the DC press. Please do avoid the ones published between oh 1915 and 1919. They were just brutal. Pitt is being mild actually.

[LordGlenconner]

461. What's funny is you think you are better than the "swarm"

The reality is you're not.

A lot of bullshit comes from your keyboard as well.

[truebrit71]

465. Mmmmm...Pretzels....

[LordGlenconner]

473. Mmmmm.....kidney beans

Wowzers.

I can come up with esoteric references too!

Wooppppeeeeeee!

[Sheepshank]

298. Nope not gonna do it...and it's getting sort of stupid to keep repeating the obvious.

That repeated line of yours telling people to use the block feature, only make sense if you want such posters as WP to continue their dribble, without open debate and counter arguments.

WP has workd hard (with your gracious, kind support) and deserves every response he's got coming.

[Marr]

119. I'm glad to see you state your goal so plainly.

Even if you did use a sock to do it.

[grasswire]

265. ...snort...

coffee on keyboard

[Richardo]

73. Yeah, occupation is not annexation. no matter how many vitriolic posts you spew.

Check your facts, and/or just be mad if that's easier.

This is one weak post, Will.

[840high]

80. k/r

[Auggie]

82. Any American President would have responded the same way

I find it nauseating too, but you never admit to fuck-ups of that magnitude on a world stage.

Most of all, I'm surprised Obama used Iraq as the example. Not a wise move.

[MisterP]

415. same with Social Security--"aright, we won't cut SS--but it's definitely a big cause of our deficit

... both parties agree, don't you?"

and now Iraq is one of "the Good Fights"

(and perhaps more importantly it helps with the constant rewriting of history: DUers are believing Obama was against the surge and wanted Plan E and doesn't want the TPP or fracking and Libya's a democracy and ...)

[randome]

83. It took you a long while to own up to 'Fitzmas', too.

Guess this may take longer.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[Bobbie Jo]

84. Oh Fuck.....I'm Gonna Throw Up.

You came out of hiding for this?

Gag me.

[randome]

124. He's always in hiding.

Rarely participates in his own threads, simply throws whatever balance of vowels and consonants he thinks will get him the attention he craves.

Then sits back and stares into the mirror for a good long while.

Some of us learn from our mistakes. But not all.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you don't give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else, you're cheating someone.[/center][/font][hr]

[MrMickeysMom]

549. logical fallacy

That level of insult is really stunning. Do you hear yourself?

[Marr]

91. Imagine the position we'd be in if we'd prosecuted the Bush Administration.

We'd actually have a bit of moral authority right now or at least, not look like self-serving hypocrites.

[Boom Sound 416]

94. I don't think Iraq refines their oil.

They just export crude

[ColesCountyDem]

95. Until recently, I looked forward to your posts.

"Until recently" is the operative phrase.

[mountain grammy]

169. Sadly, I agree.

my favorite saying that I just learned: perfection is the enemy of good.

[MicaelS]

96. I wish we still had the Unrec button just for shit like this. n/t

[GeorgeGist]

603. Awesome ...

[snooper2]

99. Do you pick up your dogs shit when it happens in a neighbors yard?

I'm betting no..

You probably just walk down the street, Oh Fido, yeah, take a dump-



Then just leave it-

Don't reply back to any of your neighbors asking you about the pile of shit. You just let your dog drop the shit, you leave, and don't answer for the shit you left.




You are a bad neighbor FYI

[Raine1967]

715. I'll say thank you in advance to the OP.

I kicked the thread.

People who are nuanced deficient, I suspect, wont understand.

Ironically, I don't have dog shit left in my yard. Maybe it's not ironic at all. Dogs are welcome in my yard and my home -- it's a respect thing.

[CJCRANE]

100. Obama is trying *not* to steer the car off the cliff

but he has a bunch of backseat drivers trying to do just that!

[PowerToThePeople]

101. Kofi Annan: Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.

Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."

He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq

[stg81]

103. William Pitt and his supporters are the reason we will lose the Senate in 2014

and POTUS will be impeached out of political spite.

I'm sure Will and the rest of you will be rejoicing then. Heckuva job!

[nadinbrzezinski]

117. You know how many people read either

Free republic or DU, outside of congressional interns that is...if you are going to blame liberals again (who did show up to vote in 2010) start blaming POTUS himself. He sees the same data the rest of us do, dems get clobbered in midterms. I guess the POTUS is suppressing the vote.

Here you go, go complaint to the President himself for depressing turnout. And his words will have far more of an effect than DU. As in a real effect.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2014/03/21/obama-congressional-elections-turnout-florida-fundraiser/6684725/

But this is expected.

[Harmony Blue]

120. I disagree leaders are supposed to help us unite the base

how are we to unite the average American citizen based on what was said by the President to GOTV for the Democratic party? People will believe that nothing has truly changed and that perception will be hard to change.

[stg81]

125. When we lose the Senate, I will make sure I post here who is to blame

and he can respond if he has the guts to

[nadinbrzezinski]

158. And I will continue to kindly point you to POTUS

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2014/03/21/obama-congressional-elections-turnout-florida-fundraiser/6684725/

[stg81]

203. immature and simplistic to think OUR responsibility to act belongs to POTUS

he's not a magician or a super hero, for fuck's sake

[nadinbrzezinski]

220. His words will have far more of an influence on voting behavior

And last time I checked...he is the Democratic Party head. But perhaps I am wrong and he has no such post...



Trust me, people will hear and talk about his words, DU, not so much.

By the way, I know this actually for a fact. I cover local politics, and my locals were talking of the AP version of that article just the other day before a city council committee hearing, will Pitt, or DU...not really. I felt dumb, since it has not personally heard of it. So I had to google it on the phone.

[zappaman]

475. I'm just gonna leave this right here.

"I felt dumb, since it has not personally heard of it."

[stg81]

500. so you admit you are not capable of thinking for yourself.

weak.

[nadinbrzezinski]

501. I love personal attacks in the morning

if you do not understand how real world politics works, it is time to go play with your toys.

By the way, personal attacks are met by me in one way, the ignore list. Welcome to it, have a good life

***PLONK***

[stg81]

504. personal attacks? Well at least I didn't call you PIECE OF SHIT USED CAR SALESMAN

because you HATE personal attacks! clearly.

[beerandjesus]

230. And we "fucking retards" aka liberals will say in unison:

Oh, stg81! You were right! If only we had been just a little bit more conservative!!

And then we'll give Will a cell at Guantanamo, right next to Ralph Nader's....


...and then we'll get on with the business of "compromising" with the Republicans a little more. Here are some ideas:

- Mandatory transvaginal ultrasounds are ok, but we Democrats will draw the line at spiked wands!
- Guns in parks, schools, bars, and churches are ok, but we Democrats will draw the line at napalm!
- Voter suppression is a-ok, but we Democrats will fight any effort to repeal anti-lynching laws!

[laundry_queen]

533. Basically. +1 nt

[Capt. Obvious]

126. If Dems lose - Will Pitt's fault

If Dems win - they won in spite of Will Pitt because the responsible adults were in charge.

[Maedhros]

183. If Dems lose, they will pledge to work with the new Republican majority.

If Dems win, they will pledge to work with the Republican minority.

[psiman]

250. I have said this before

If I go down in November, I will go down fighting - and will remember who my friends were, as I will remember who my enemies were.

[Capt. Obvious]

282. I am the great Cornholio

[CJCRANE]

438. If Will Pitt loses...

the terrorists win!

[GeorgeGist]

605. Oh fuch yeah ...

[Marr]

134. Make up your mind. Is it a meaningless fringe or a crucial demographic?

It can't be both.

If the left is a meaningless fringe, you don't get to blame them when Democrats lose elections. If it's a crucial demographic, then you can't brush off their political agenda.

Pick one.

[Marrah_G]

141. Such bullshit

If we lose the Senate it will be because the Dems are not listening to the people and continuing to be lapdogs for the big corporations and banks.

[stevenleser]

243. Jury Results:

On Thu Mar 27, 2014, 04:27 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

William Pitt and his supporters are the reason we will lose the Senate in 2014
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4734916

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Blaming Will and the people who agree with him for the Dems hypothetical loss of the senate? Seriously? Alot of the people this person is saying this crap about are the very boots on the ground activists and grassroots campaigners. It's offensive.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Mar 27, 2014, 04:34 PM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I am not hiding this.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Much as I dislike this post, I cannot in good conscience vote to hide. there are too many petty hides on DU as it is.


Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: personal attack. style fits that of a famous "will pitt hating troll" which was active on du for quite a while
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Aw.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: You can't have it both ways. You can't allow the nasty hyperbole in Will's post and then cry foul when this person uses hyperbole back. I have a feeling this will get hidden and that will be proof of an ugly double standard.

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

[Warren Stupidity]

494. yeah Nate was just commenting on that over at 538

"It's unbelievable, but it seems that Will Pitt over at Truth Out is why the Democrats are going to lose the senate".

If I hadn't read that quote right here in this post, I wouldn't believe it, but there it is.

[truedelphi]

507. Sorry but I have to disagree.

I am out tabling every other day or so on a non-partisan issue.

And Locally, people are fed up.

More and more people are saying "I no longer vote."

At first I thought maybe I was just out on a day when so many other disgruntled folks were out and about.

But then, getting bored, I started asking people why they won't vote any more.

And I keep hearing: 'Well, once I was told that voting for the Lesser Evil is required,' I couldn't deal with it any more. Lesser Evil is still evil."

Obama got the nation's Highest Office back in 2008 because his handlers had him chirping out the progressive speaking points of Dennis Kucincih. That had appeal for a lot of people.

Hells, Bells, my RW tea bagging neighbor voted for Obama. (A stat every Democratic voter, and especially Dem Leadership should understand - American public is right now 32 to 34% for the "D" party, 22 to 26% for the "R" Party and the rest of us are simply looking for someone, anyone who will quit the insane wars, quit the insane War Against Some Drugs, return the jobs to the USA, etc.. That last group now has more people than either "Major" Party!)

But then by mid-December 2008, before his even being inaugurated, it was announced his choice for Treasury was RICO-candidate Tim Geithner, and it became immediately obvious that his puppet strings extended to the Big Financial People. And Big Military etc.

[MrMickeysMom]

554. Stunning….

You act like there is a party format for WP and that more than one persons DU commentary colored outside the lines is an actual threat.

Do you hear how silly that sounds? The reason people detach from their political party is that they stop believing in ideas. You can't have ideas if you suppress commentary, regardless of agreement.

But, your comment is out and out paranoia, followed by accusations, when knowledge is called for, followed by debate.

[GeorgeGist]

604. Awesome ...

[itsrobert]

109. HIT AND RUN

Maybe you are helping Obama sell those used cars, since your Operating style is to hit and run?

[rudolph the red]

110. Some DUers are more special than others.

[tkmorris]

145. You're right

Not everyone can call another poster an asshole and get away with it.

[grasswire]

453. yes, some have protected sanctuary for political speech. nt

[hedgehog]

111. You have to play with the cards you're dealt,

and sometimes you have a shitty hand.

[truebrit71]

127. Or you just say...the two aren't the same thing...but they are BOTH wrong.

Much simpler, much more concise, and much fewer Twister-like contortions necessary to not dramatically piss off your base...

[bobduca]

137. Be prepared to be told you are not his base

[truebrit71]

143. I found out on Inauguration day I wasn't part of his base...

...much to my disappointment...

[Rex]

157. No mental gymnastics needed, of course now we are both going to get labeled as Putin lovers

or some other rot. There is no good reason to ever defend invading Iraq. It was done under false pretenses, by the GOP - you know, those assholes that block all legislation to help keep the country running.

Doesn't really matter anymore anyway, GD is now META...

[LanternWaste]

112. You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye Who cheer when soldier lads march by...

SUICIDE IN THE TRENCHES
By Siegfried Sassoon

I knew a simple soldier boy
Who grinned at life in empty joy,
Slept soundly through the lonesome dark,
And whistled early with the lark.
In winter trenches, cowed and glum,
With crumps and lice and lack of rum,
He put a bullet through his brain.
No one spoke of him again.

You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye
Who cheer when soldier lads march by,
Sneak home and pray you'll never know
The hell where youth and laughter go.

[KoKo]

254. Recommend!

[Puzzledtraveller]

275. apropo for present company indeed.

[AgingAmerican]

116. Unmetered wholesale theft of oil

Iraq was a huge GOP money laundering operation.

www.gregpalast.com/opec-and-the-economic-conquest-of-iraqrnwhy-iraq-still-sells-its-oil-a-la-cartelrntwilight-of-the-neocon-gods/

[Gidney N Cloyd]

123. How do posts like this help anything? nt

[LordGlenconner]

155. They feed the OP's massive ego

Which has a never-ending thirst for attention, affirmation from sycophants etc.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

177. I tend to agree with this assessment of the situation.

[malthaussen]

128. But isn't the Short Form of Mr Obama's statement...

"I didn't like it, but we done it. However, what Russia's doing is worse?"

I'm kind of amazed at all the outrage this little speech has caused here, the posts are ramping up to infinity. What is the man supposed to say?

A bit careless with the truth, I agree, especially as regards Iraq's resources and their "democratic" government, but it has always been our government's policy to perpetuate those myths, and does anyone here really think any sitting President is going to denounce the actions of a predecessor? The best you're ever going to get is "Oopsies, a mistake was made." Carefully avoiding any mention of an actor is that "making."

-- Mal

[Rex]

140. He could simply say Iraq was wrong and so is Russia's invasion.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Does America have a We Do No Wrong policy? If so, it needs to be ratified.

[truebrit71]

146. Yup...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4735007

[malthaussen]

176. Not smart politically.

He would then be attacked for "apologizing." This is one of those cases where moral truth and political expediency do not line up well. AFAIK, if the US does not have a We Do No Wrong Policy, the one we do have is virtually indistinguishable from it. Domestically, there are still great hordes who believe My Country Right Or Wrong, and it won't do to piss them off. OTOH, those who wish for a more realistic (nevermind honest) assessment don't vote in sufficient numbers to require appeasement.

You can see this right on DU, where everyone is supposedly some kind of liberal. Imagine what it is like outside the bubble. What do you want to bet a lot of Blue Dog types are cheering Mr Obama's stance? While cursing the rotten Russkis, which is the point of the exercise?

-- Mal

[Rex]

179. Political expediency is what got us into the Iraqi war in the first place.

You make some very good points!

[GeorgeGist]

607. Maybe you could post some Shock and Awe pics from Crimea ...

[NYC Liberal]

130. What's "utterly nauseating" is this post.

Obama is no hypocrite for opposing Putin's aggression seeing as he opposed Bush's aggression as well. And then he ended it when he took office and had the power to do so.

This shit should be self-deleted.

[Blue_Adept]

135. 130 posts and no engagement from the original author

I'd rather see Pitt write an actual article and just link it than basically creating flashpoint topics and not engaging with folks. This "above the fray" aspect is off-putting from a member.

[nadinbrzezinski]

150. Because of the faux outrage

I leave the real meat off site now. Nope, won't post anything of real significance here any more, either for local, or national, or international matters.

Some here will not stop until Will does the same. Mind you, we both have outlets that most people here lack.

This actually diminishes the place and makes it increasingly like it's mirror. And it is reflected in the Alexa ratings. DU continues to lose ground.

[Blue_Adept]

168. Oh, I agree

I still remember coming here in the days after the site started. I didn't re-register with DU2 and have largely spent the last many years just reading until recently since I wanted to talk a little film stuff.

GD is just a source of amusement while I do other things. Mostly I just hit up the latest links to other places and read the articles. It's unfortunate to see how things have fallen though from those early days of heavy involvement.

[bobduca]

186. wrong

there are 130 posts because swarm!!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4735054

[LexVegas]

139. "We did not grab its resources for our own gain."

I wonder who "our" is?

[grahamhgreen]

578. ROFL! Gag choke spew.

[WilliamPitt]

142. Once upon a time...

...if a politician - ANY politician - sprayed a bunch of lies into the wind about Iraq, this entire place would fall on that politician like ten tons of bricks.

Times change.

"Have the courage to say no. Have the courage to face the truth. Do the right thing because it is right. These are the magic keys to living your life with integrity."

- W. Clement Stone

[Marrah_G]

153. Never apologize for not being a hypocrite Will

Your stance on the issues has not changed just because a Democrat is in the White House, unlike others who look at politics like a sporting event.

[Puzzledtraveller]

279. What Marrah said

[laundry_queen]

534. +1 nt

[GeorgeGist]

608. Awesome ...

[nadinbrzezinski]

156. That was before a certain inauguration in 2008

If republicans take the WH (historically they are well poised in the post war period) people will go back to hating all republicans.

[mopinko]

162. because some of us know the difference.

obama in not bush, neither is he king of the world. he isn't even king of america. hell, they barely let him be the f'ing president.
he certainly is not the one who invaded iraq, nor did he benefit from the oil industry that got back on its feet. (that does not justify shit, but that is what happened. we went in and restarted the oil fields.)

take a long walk my friend. throwing firebombs is a fine profession. but i think you need to get out of the house, and think about your aim. you are too smart to be the centerpiece of a circular firing squad.

[one_voice]

485. +10000

[CJCRANE]

167. There are other OPs about it. Look around. nt

[pnwmom]

170. Once upon a time you wrote fair posts,

even when critical of the President, without resorting to name calling, profanity, slurs, or demeaning, personal attacks.

Times change, but your little diatribes are not a sign of personal growth.

[nadinbrzezinski]

188. Used car salesman, followed by the letters B...U...S...H

were written and widely applauded before 2008.

So either you are going to allow it regardless of letter behind name, or you are not.

It is a rhetorical device, one used accompanied by the last name Bush often during those 8 years on this site no less. I am willing to bet, Jeb wins the presidency, it will be, "suddenly" ok.

And that is hypocrisy of the highest order.

[pnwmom]

202. The difference is that this is a Democratic progressive site, not a place to hate on

other Democrats and progressives.

[nadinbrzezinski]

213. Being critical of the pre...forgive me President,

does not equal hate.

In a democracy, one that works that is, calls for blindly following leaders are not tolerated.

The first eight years of the present century came with authoritarian calls to get behind the president no matter what by conservatives. The next six, will be eight, are coming with the same authoritarian calls from conservadems. Both go against the grain of a democratic society. A President should be applauded when they do good, but even brought through the coals when they do bad...and that is regardless of party.

I concluded a while ago that the US is far from a mature democracy. So I get it, this belief that the guy in charge will have, somehow, his feelings hurt is quite common. Take my word on this, the sycophants that surround any President keep them well protected from the dung flying regardless of party. They will read the establishment press...truthout, DU hardly.

[pnwmom]

262. I have no problem with criticism of any office holder of any party. Criticism doesn't equal hate.

Where WP has crossed the line is in his ventures into name-calling, slurs, profanity, and cursing out of the President.

[nadinbrzezinski]

276. Would you like me to point to editorials from oh WW I?

Mr. Pitt is actually being very mild. What about the US Civil War?

Yes, we were in the midst of a civil war, that would determine the fate of the nation, and editorial writers put sailors to shame. This is really, really, and I mean this, REALLY mild, And the same words were a ok, when used with Former President George W Bush? Hell, we even called him Dubya... preznit, and a yes, used car salesman.

People really need to grow a thicker skin.

But as I said, the United States is not a mature democracy. What we have is a bunch of competing personality cults.

And yes, it is troubling.

One more reason not to engage in writing long, well researched OPs for this site. There are many, but this is one of them.

[pnwmom]

311. This is supposed to be a Democratic and progressive site.

And President Obama doesn't deserve this treatment. Obama didn't invent the concept of a drug formulary for the ACA, and he voted against the war in Iraq.

[nadinbrzezinski]

324. You surely know what Will Rogers wrote about Democrats right?

And trust me, his feelings are not getting hurt. I will be shocked if anybody beyond a WH intern reads DU... to be honest. It will not go in the briefing documents.

And by the way, you are telling me the same standard applies here to FR, and protecting "the leader." Are you being serious?

If it bothers you so much, IGNORE WILL PITT.

You are just ensuring I will not post anything of significance here again though.

[giftedgirl77]

434. Well when I googled Obama used car saleman,

this little gem was the first link to pop up:


Leftwing editor turns angrily against Obamacare, calls Obama “you piece of sh*t used-car salesman”

Posted on 21 March, 2014 by sophia



Another O-Bot that didn’t listen

Harry Reid is going to have a hard time portraying Will Pitt as a Koch brothers shill…

William Rivers Pitt, a leftwing editor at TruthOut, whose foibles have been chronicled in NewsBusters and is probably best known for his journalism “scoop” of predicting the indictment of Karl Rove on May 12, 2006, is back in the spotlight again. While waiting 24 business hours to elapse for the Rove indictment to finally take place, Pitt shocked many at the Democratic Underground by posting an extremely angry attack, What I’ve learned about the Affordable Care Act, upon Obamacare due to a bad personal experience with it. In order to fully appreciate how far Pitt has turned against Obamacare, we need to go to his DU post back in December when he was proclaiming his love for Obama’s signature plan…before he even experienced it:

Well, I just had my first experience with the Healthcare.gov website…

Creating a user name and account: easy.

Plowing through all the questions: easy.

Alas, I logged out to track down some personal info, and when I tried to log back in, it said the system was currently down.

…but then, Ermahgerd! A phone number: 800-318-2596

And it’s toll-free, too!

So I’ll be calling in the morning to finish the process.

No. Big. Deal.

Thanks, Obama.

Yes, Pitt was thanking Obama before he had personally experienced Obamacare. And now, after having his Obamacare Moment, Pitt has moved from praising to cursing the President. A warning for those with tender sensibilities: although I have cleaned up Pitt’s harsh language, many will still find it offensive:

What I’ve learned after a three-month war with these fiends: the ACA says the insurance companies cannot deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, which is true as far as it goes. But they can deny coverage for the life-saving medications necessary to treat those conditions. The insurance company I signed up with through the ACA exchange just denied coverage of my wife’s multiple sclerosis medication. We’re “covered,” to the tune of $700 a month…just not for what she really needs.

A cozy loophole, that.

F— you, insurance industry.

F— you, Mr. President, you piece of sh*t used-car salesman.

From my heart and soul, f— you.

http://gopthedailydose.com/2014/03/21/leftwing-editor-turns-angrily-obamacare-calls-obama-piece-sht-used-car-salesman/

Not a DU link there & is providing large amounts of ammo to the RW in an election yr.

[sheshe2]

522. Great find giftedgirl!

The comments were pretty interesting too!

Thanks!

[giftedgirl77]

531. No problem She, I've dropped that bad boy on a couple

of threads today & see it's starting to make it's rounds. That's definitely not helping our cause.

[Marr]

341. Wow-- so you just admit it then?

You'll excuse the same remarks/behavior that you would excoriate a Republican for, because... this is a site where you don't criticize Democrats.

Ok, but don't expect anyone with a shred of integrity to line up with you.

[pnwmom]

387. Criticism is welcome. The hating, slurs, profanity, and cursing out directed toward Obama is not.

We get enough of that from the freeps.

[grasswire]

455. why do you visit the freeps?

Many references today here to what the freeps and wingnuts are saying.

Why do so many Obama supporters visit those places every day? Why give them the ad revenue and "foot traffic"?

[Zorra]

255. Too bad President Obama didn't say something like this about Bush and Iraq:

"And the devil came here yesterday. Yesterday the devil came here. Right here." [crosses himself] "And it smells of sulfur still today...

...The hegemonic pretensions of the American empire are placing at risk the very survival of the human species. We continue to warn you about this danger and we appeal to the people of the United States and the world to halt this threat, which is like a sword hanging over our heads...

....Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world. Truly. As the owner of the world...

....I think we could call a psychiatrist to analyze yesterday's statement made by the president of the United States. As the spokesman of imperialism, he came to share his nostrums, to try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the peoples of the world....

....They say they want to impose a democratic model. But that's their democratic model. It's the false democracy of elites, and, I would say, a very original democracy that's imposed by weapons and bombs and firing weapons....

....We want ideas to save our planet, to save the planet from the imperialist threat. And hopefully in this very century, in not too long a time, we will see this, we will see this new era, and for our children and our grandchildren a world of peace based on the fundamental principles of the United Nations, but a renewed United Nations..."

Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela, addressing the United Nations, 2006.

[lumberjack_jeff]

329. Being provocative and wrong isn't the worlds biggest sin, provided you're being honest.

I think that some of the criticism of you in this thread is as unfair as your criticism of Obama.

I'm not suggesting you're right, because you're not. I'm suggesting that you're entitled to be wrong.

This place could use more honest, principled disagreement.

I'm sick of listening to panderers. I'd rather be poked with a stick.

[GeorgeGist]

609. Awesome ...

But, but, but we asked for permission.

[LittleBlue]

334. Spot on. And I'll take it a step further

The kinds of comments are what fuels libertarianism. People see hypocrisy, absolutely naked truth-twisting for blatant self-interest and say "You know what? Fuck it". After all, everything in politics is a lie. You see the president up there saying something that he can't possibly believe, that no thinking person can possibly believe, so a voter can never be sure what they're voting for. The "fuck it" attitude fuels anti-government sentiment, and a portion of those get wrapped up into the Tea Party, the Ron Paulites and all the other destructive political attitudes. The rest don't vote and don't care because they figure it doesn't matter who gets elected. Every politician is out for himself after all, so why should voters care?

Then when progressives try to convince them of absolutely critical things like a public option, abortion rights or climate change, the attitude is the same: the government is the enemy and "fuck it".

This apathy causes irreparable harm to our nation. And the president's comments fuel that apathy. Why even make these comments? These words are fooling no one who isn't already a fool. It's just one more nail in the coffin of meaningful political participation. The sad thing is, if we just stayed true to our values we'd have 70% of Americans on our side. We win on issues. Period. It's the "business as usual" shit that kills us.

[MineralMan]

144. While DUers aren't required to participate in a thread they start,

It's usually something people do. Usually, except in the case of a flamebait initial post. As you know, just about everyone remembers your previous name-calling of the President. You quote part of the ugly name you called him in this OP, as well. You know people will remember the previous thread.

Then, you do not remain active in the thread to answer the replies people post in it. That makes me wonder about your intent in posting this thread in the way you posted it, complete with the "used car salesman" label. There are several threads about President Obama's comment and why it was unsatisfactory. In those threads, there is substantial discussion.

In this thread, however, the subject of the discussion appears to be you, rather than the President and his remarks. That's unfortunate, I think. Perhaps you'd re-enter the thread and join the discussion about you that has ensued.

Or, perhaps not...

ETA: I see that you deigned to add a post to the thread at the same time I was writing the above.

[WilliamPitt]

151. #142

Irony is always awesome.

[MineralMan]

171. I acknowledged that in an edit to my post.

You posted while I was writing that post.

Now, how about going back and replying to Skinner's post upthread? That would be excellent.

[Supersedeas]

699. Nice rant

Utterly misplaced...but there you have it

[bravenak]

149. Is this all you do now?

Your disgust and hatred of the president is causing your writing to suffer. At one time i enjoyed your musings. Especially the one about the fainting couch. Now you seem to have gone all Aunt PittyPat over Obama. I mean you take his words out of context and try to make it seem like he was defending something he voted against. He fought against. The same war you wrote a book opposing he opposed right there on the Senate floor. Now you blame him for not using the words you prefer.
I agree with the president that the annexation of crimea by Russia is unsupportable. Just as i would not favor Mexico annexing California.
I remember reading about a particular guy running around Europe with his army and annexing other countries as he pleased. I believe it caused a world war. I hope you are not suggesting that we should say nothing to Putin because of the Iraq war.

[JustAnotherGen]

175. Aunt Pittypat!

Love ya! I'll just leave my comments on this thread to you times 100!

[bravenak]

197. Good morning!!

This is what i love waking up to. Sure makes me feel like getting out there to spread democracy among my peers. This stuff is so depressing i haven't even bothered to start working on the campaigns here in town. No motivation. I was supposed to do some office work and stuff, but whats the point? Its obvious from reading DU that theres no chance to win anyway, and the rhetoric around here is so harsh that i'm just super bummed. If democrats don't even support our own president, we will never get independents. Some read DU i am sure. Looking around i see no reason for them to be swayed in our direction.

[JustAnotherGen]

208. I feel the same way

Some guy shows up - makes 4 posts and they pretty much go like this -

Even if Congress and Obama strike down the collection of phone data and holding onto it for 5 years - it will still go on. One of those: We can't trust the 'gubmint' types.

Okay - he wins!

Fuck it! I'm staying home, abstaining from voting, and drinking with The Gio!

[bravenak]

225. I was thinking about just getting an absentee ballot or something.

I do not want to see all the excited republicans who troll DU voting. The troglodytes are back in their holes over at the cavern loving this op and spreading it around the internets to prove that democrats do not support democrats. Why is he constantly helping the other side make their arguments? I live in a very red state, and the things i hear on here could have come straight out of one of these tea partiers brains.
I knew that this crap had spread since last week, when and old guy started it up with me at a&w last night saying that even democrats hate the ACA, he read us complaining about the ACA on free republic. He read excerpts of Will's op over there and they are having a field day. I'm sure some old guy will corner me about this one. I am not pleased with the idea.

[JustAnotherGen]

232. Ahh

I'm in NJ - but the 7th district - redder than red! I feel ya on this.

It's kind of cool though because these threads let us get into their 'heads' if you will. This way we are prepared when confronted with the same beliefs on the street.

And you are absolutely correct - they are giving them an awful lot of fuel for their ignorance and stupidity. Now watch someone alert me for calling RepublicOns ignorant and stupid. Will totally get conflated by that 'in crowd' to jag call willpitt ignorant and stupid.

Ya can't make this shit up brave!

[bravenak]

246. Funny how you have to watch what you say, but others have free passes.

I wish chilling the fuck out was an option in life. But it's not. Apparently.

[nadinbrzezinski]

388. I have to watch what I say on this site all the time

egg shells come to mind in fact. If I say the wind blew, I am almost guaranteed a few people will point out why I am wrong. So that is not new to me.

And when I have pointed that out, that is a problem

By the way, I will point out, from real life, I know silly... but the statements the President made the other day about Democrats getting clobbered in midterns. is already having an effect, Things one hears at City Hall before committee meetings are formally called to order. Trust me, at no moment did Will Pitt or DU come into that conversation.

[bravenak]

409. In my town, in real life, they love the new Will Pitt. It is a tea party place.

I am pleased for you that you do not hear the cackles of glee from excited right wingers whilst you roam city hall in search of the latest scoop.
Sorry that you feel like you must walk on eggshells, but i haven't noticed you doing so. I have noticed you have not been shy about giving your opinions to others and teaching them to use the ignore function. I must point out that it may also be a much more pleasant experience for you if you put those that feel the need to constantly mock you on ignore, following your own advice. I never use that function myself, but if i ever got a flock of people that do not like me following me around i probably would.

I do not mind criticism, but i dislike name calling and do not feel that name calling is criticism. It distracts from any point the author was attempting to make and i find it depressing to my enthusiasm to participate this election season. I will vote. But i haven't even bothered to call back anyone and work on their campaigns. If this is not the intent of all the name calling and democrat bashing, thats unfortunate because this is how it affects me, and i do not see how this can motivate anyone to vote dem.

[nadinbrzezinski]

412. My ignore list is quite extensive actually

and yes, I do walk on eggshells, and rarely now post OPs... in fact, my real meaty stuff, goes off site. Why? I can keep the shit stirrers (yes they went there) IP banned.

[zappaman]

479. "rarely now post OPs"

219 OPs this year.
that's "rarely"?

[Hoyt]

160. More crud for right wingers to cite against us. From photos, Obama couldn't maintain straight face.

[pnwmom]

161. Lately, you seem unable to compose any post about the President that doesn't include name-calling,

profanity, or cursing out.

Can't you write anymore without resorting to such tactics?

And you consistently blame him for things he didn't do. Drug formularies have existed for decades in single payer systems, and Bush started the Iraq war after Obama voted against it.

It seems that you're unhappy with the world and determined to take it out on one person. President Obama is flawed, just as you are flawed and I am flawed. It is possible to criticize his ACTIONS, however, without resorting to demeaning personal attacks. People who do that lower themselves, not the person they're attacking.

[JoePhilly]

182. As the various outrage topics die ...

... this is what we can expect.

Obama ended the Iraq war, many here claimed he never would.
DADT, same thing.
DOMA, headed to its end.
Afhan war, same thing.
The evil SS cuts, not happening even though many were positive they would.
Bush tax cuts, never going to end, ended.
NSA never going to be regined, oops ... that's happening.

The perpetually disgruntled are watching their outrage topic die off.

Thus today, after a rather dull press conference, the Combustible Hair Club has found the "worst thing Obama has ever said", since last's week's worst thing.

And next week, we'll have a new outrage. Some new "worst thing ever".

[randome]

286. Add OWS and the increasing likelihood that Snowden will never return.

And you have disgruntled individuals who wanted to be 'heroes' to the rest of us finally discovering that being a hero means a lot more work than they imagined.

I predicted a year or so ago that some of the OWSers who could not admit the truth might take a right-ward turn. I don't like to toot my own horn (actually, I do), but I think I was right.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[Auntie Bush]

431. Well said pnwmom

and so true.

[antigop]

595. oh, good lord. If you don't like his posts, then use THE IGNORE feature. nt

[pnwmom]

596. Why? I have just as much right to post as he does. n/t

[antigop]

598. You can post whatever you want...and people have the right to put you on IGNORE if they don't like

what you post.

[pnwmom]

599. Of course. And your point is?

[antigop]

600. the point was made in post #595. Sorry if you didn't understand it. nt

[pnwmom]

606. If I'd ignored his posts, I wouldn't have been able to correct the false statements

he was making about the ACA, lies that his "friend" and "ally" the insurance broker was feeding him.

Because I read his post, I wrote an OP explaining how people with pre-existing conditions cannot be denied insurance by any insurer, whether or not the insurer is on or off the exchange. (A claim he was making in his first furious anti-Obama diatribe.)

I think it is important in these last days of sign-up for the ACA, to make sure that people aren't misled by misinformation they read about the law.

Don't you?

[antigop]

616. Your choice...you can CHOOSE to put him on IGNORE. Or not. It's that simple. nt

[pnwmom]

617. I choose to answer him instead. You chose to tell me I should just ignore him. I disagree. n/t

[antigop]

619. So, you CHOOSE NOT TO PUT HIM ON IGNORE. That's YOUR CHOICE. nt

[pnwmom]

622. When did I say it wasn't my choice? You're the one who told me I should.

But I'd rather answer him, especially when he repeats untrue information that might harm people who believe him.

[antigop]

623. So you made YOUR CHOICE. Now LIVE WITH IT. Have a GREAT evening. nt

[pnwmom]

624. I DID live with it. I said what I thought of his posts, instead of following your wish

that I ignore them.

We've been going in circles because you won't admit that I have as much right to speak as he did, and telling me to ignore him doesn't change that.

[antigop]

625. LOL. What part of post #598 didn't you understand? nt

[pnwmom]

626. What part of my reply didn't you understand?

[theboss]

163. "If an invasion and ten-year occupation isn't annexation, then nothing is."

Actually, annexation is annexation.

So....I don't know where you are going with this.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

510. seems like he is trying to weaken and change the meaning of a word, in this case 'annexation' nt

[libodem]

165. We SHOCK and AWED those poor fucks

For gads sake. We bombed them back to the stone age overnight. And we left it that way.

We broke it. We did not fix it. We left it in ruins.

[lumberjack_jeff]

166. Not fair.

The UN and the US are attempting, through diplomatic means (which I find refreshing), to discourage Russia from occupying and annexing their neighbors. That position is the high moral ground. Putin's lame excuse for his actions is "Iraq".
a) Iraq was a bullshit stupid move. Hundreds of thousands of people died and our country is now scrambling to get back to the moral high ground we held prior to that point. Obama's action to leave Iraq was the beginning of repairing our reputation.
b) The objective is to stop Russia from annexing anyone else. I don't want the president to say "Iraq? You're right. My bad. I apologize and realize that I don't have the moral standing to ask you to not invade Ukraine's neighbors. Carry on while I alternate between self-flagellation and wringing my hands impotently."
c) Like it or not, there ARE differences. If we had invaded Mexico without the pretext of terror and set up a puppet government to act as a buffer zone protecting us from Guatemala, the analogy might be apt.

The president who said the quote in the OP is the one who got us out of Iraq.

What's the half life of bullshit excuses? Were it not for Iraq, could Putin have used the Bay of Pigs, or Vietnam or Wounded Knee? Would you be as "nauseated" if Obama had called him out on it?

[steve2470]

181. questions

1- Did you write the President or send him an email with your critique ?

2- Did you also tell the DNC your critique ?

3- Do you plan on protesting outside the White House ?

4- Did you contact your state Democratic Party with your critique ?

Personally, if I was as annoyed as you are with what he said, I would at least send an email to the WH. At least.

I know many here will say that all the above are ineffective wastes of time. Posting on an internet message board is more effective ?

[Marrah_G]

193. Writing to 1,2,4 and some others now

3 is just not possible for me anymore, since the Banks and Big Corps destroyed our economy and jobs.

Discussions like these help top bring issues to the forefront and actually encourage people to speak out more to those in power.

[steve2470]

239. that's good you are being as effective as possible

We citizens need to utilize effective means to give feedback and influence policy and practice. I always say, at least I did what I could and I feel better.

[Marrah_G]

249. Speaking out is the only way to change things

We need to stop being afraid to primary our congresspeople because someone more progressive might lose. We need to stop being afraid to speak out when the people who are supposed to work for us are screwing up. We need to start voting for and supporting people that we truly feel have progressive ideals and are not afraid to show it, instead of just voting for whatever corporate tools the Party or the Money people tell us is the only candidate that can win.

[xchrom]

185. du rec.

[WilliamPitt]

189. "The case he made was preposterous."

"Even in Iraq, America sought to work within the international system," said the commander-in-chief in a major foreign policy speech at the Palais des Beaux-Arts in Brussels. "We did not claim or annex Iraq's territory. We did not grab its resources for our own gain."

He knows so much better than that. The case we made before the U.N. was a insult to the world, built on stovepiped intelligence, wishful thinking, and outright bullshit, and delivered by Colin Powell because, as Dick Cheney put it so eloquently, Powell could lose a couple of points off his poll numbers. He knows that the Bush people were going into Iraq even without the U.N. -- which, of course, it eventually did. (Digby handled this with her usual aplomb.) He knows we made Iraq take its oil industry private, and he knows why. He knows who the profiteers are, and he knows into whose pockets the oil revenues descended. They are the people he inexcusably let off the hook by looking forward and not back, and by offering them and the country absolution without first demanding penance. (For all her other faults, Holy Mother Church at least gets the order right.) All of these things make up what he once called "the wrong war."

"We ended our war and left Iraq to its people and a fully sovereign Iraqi state that can make decisions about its own future," he said.

Holy Jesus H. Christ in a Humvee, he knows better than this, too. As Ryan Grim points out, we did not exactly leave Iraq as the kind of Babylonian Rhode Island we said we were trying to make of the place.

He also knows very well why the riposte about America in Iraq to any attack on Russia in the Crimea has such a sting. It has a sting because it is almost entirely accurate. The destruction of American credibility in the areas of foreign affairs and international law that was wrought by our criminal occupation of Iraq will cost us decades to repair. The rest of the world, most of which declined to participate in our excellent adventure, doesn't have to listen to our preaching on those subjects without snickering. The president yesterday sought to rouse the outrage of the world against Russia through what were essentially debating points. If he had demonstrated, early and loudly, that he was going hold the perpetrators accountable for the crimes they committed in the previous administration, that he was going to call them to account for their lies, their greed, and their basic disregard for democratic norms and for the standing of the United States in the world, if he had demanded penance before absolution, then, maybe, he could have given yesterday's speech and not looked and sounded so damned bizarre. As it was, it was less a speech than it was an elegy, a sad eulogy for missed chances and lost, golden promises.

- Charles P. Pierce

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/obama-speech-brussels-032714

[randome]

224. The word 'even' iimplies a lot that would not have fit in a speech like this.

Why do you think he used that word? Why not simply say 'In Iraq...'?

What is implied is this: 'Even when America does shitty things to other countries...' You can see where that goes, right?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[snooper2]

234. are you talking to yourself, well replying/talking to yourself?

That can be madness you know?

Eminem has had to deal with it too-

[Number23]

579. Seems he has chosen to respond to himself instead of those who find this post to be

unhinged flamebait, juvenile and drenched in stupidity. Which would be the vast majority of posters in this thread.

[Oilwellian]

342. Indeed

Never thought I'd see a Dem president rewrite history on the atrocities of the Iraq war. This definitely won't help our GOTV 2014 efforts. I can't help but wonder if it's by Third Way design. They've certainly worked hard to divide and weaken our party.

K&R

[Sheepshank]

191. know what's nauseating?

your insistence the Obama and every single solitary thing Obama is sickening. Your opinions on this one person have become fucking nauseating.

... 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 in a fully sovereign Iraqi state that can 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 ...

[snappyturtle]

194. For the life of me I cannot ascertain a reason why the President would

think such rhetoric is helpful especially when addressing the world. Of course 'we' did not claim or annex Iraq. We left it annihilated along with the gift of depleted uranium....the gift which keeps on giving. You are so right saying that the Iraquis are running for their lives.

K&R

[CountAllVotes]

195. America’s decision to go into Iraq

America's decision? What about all of those protests and people saying NO IRAQ WAR in 2003? I guess these are nothing but distant memories of the past, memories that no longer matter nor ever did matter and down the memory hole they have gone.



We the People don't matter, not that we ever did matter.

How much longer must this madness continue? How much longer Pres. Obama? How long?

[NCTraveler]

196. I am often left unhappy with some of the Presidents rhetoric.....

This isn't one of those times. I don't envy him having to say that, I'm sure it isn't enjoyable for him. For the most part, Obama had to address the comment. His response was proper in the situation.

[chrisa]

211. Laughable. Iraq is a corrupt puppet state.

It wasn't even close to a free country before, and it isn't now either. Iraq's people haven't "claimed" a thing - they're just ruled by another faction of tyrants. Iraq is going to stab us in the back eventually - it's a matter of when, like all of the puppets we prop up.

[mountain grammy]

214. It's not that I object to your disagreement with the president

it's just the ridiculous name calling puts you in there with Donald Rumsfeld and others who make stupid and outlandish remarks that are a complete waste of time and energy.
When I see this on DU, I usually won't waste my time and energy on a response, but, really Mr. Pitt, you're so much better than this.

[IdaBriggs]

218. I find this post (and several others you have made recently in the same vein) offensive.

You are contemptuous of President Obama at a level I personally reserve for George W. Bush, and you apparently aren't ashamed to show it.

I have been reading your posts for nearly ten years; you are an eloquent writer, and when you decide to "bite" with your wit, "scathing" is simply not an adequate description.

However. I am nearly ready to put you on Ignore because your comments are very Rush/Sean/Fox like, and frankly, if I wanted to read such things, I wouldn't be a member of DU.

This is *NOT* to say that your opinions on "points of policy" aren't valid, or that I believe we should all bow low before any elected official with a "D" after their name.

What I am telling you is that the hyperbole you are putting forth is coming across as personal, the level of viciousness is similar to those who profit from hate speech, and it is becoming hard to believe you actually support reasoned discourse on matters of opinion and/or policy.

I have personally found that "throwing a hissy fit" is a great way to get attention on a message board that thrives on controversy (someday over drinks we can talk about that), but seriously, unless you are interviewing for a regular gig as a contributor to a right wing rag, some of your comments are frankly over the top.

Best, Ida

[fascisthunter]

219. The Hypocrisy is Depressing

Last edited Thu Mar 27, 2014, 06:07 PM - Edit history (1)

No more moral high ground for the Democratic Party unless folks within it publicly disagree with the President. This is gonna be very challenging to people in this party.

[grasswire]

307. that, indeed, is the rub

When the president takes away Democratic principles, the party is weakened. And he does it regularly.

[HereSince1628]

222. Wow. Great example of how PROVOCATION can fail a writer.

The razor's edge of provocation is not always an indication of sharp and controlled wit.

[Liberal Veteran]

226. Well, at the very least, you dispelled the notion your last comment was just an emotional outburst.

One coming from a place of distress for a loved one rather than a truly held opinion.

Good day, Mr. Pitt. I rather doubt we'll be crossing paths much anymore on DU. I do hope that our next elected representative meets all your ideals and wishes.

[HereSince1628]

245. Yes. It sort of makes me wonder if there isn't some 'portfolio management' going on.

Will has used DU as a laboratory quite a bit over the years.

[phleshdef]

227. If Obama is a used car salesman, you must be selling door to door vacuum cleaners.

You know damn good and well that he was NOT trying to sell the Iraq war. That's not what he fucking said at all. You know it. That makes you a LIAR.

[bravenak]

269. Fuller Brushes.

Vacuums suck up dirt, brushes just spread it around.

[bluestate10]

636. Nah, Buggywhips. The OP sounds sharp, but

his time and honest utility passed long ago.

[lamp_shade]

233. Happy now?

[krawhitham]

242. This place used to have standards

[Bernardo de La Paz]

244. Clear difference between grabbing land by force versus not grabbing land. See it. nt

[sheshe2]

247. Utterly nauseating is correct.

I guess the" used car salesman" shtick worked so well for you the first time, that you decided to recycle it.

Lather Rinse Repeat

[PeaceNikki]

252. He got a LOT of attention for it the first time.

So... natch.

[flamingdem]

271. +1

[vlakitti]

256. "American Exceptionalism" on demonstration

and Mr. Pitt is right. What Mr. Obama said was embarassing bullshit and he rightly got called on it. And probably what Pitt said is a majority opinion in the left part of the spectrum in this country.

The invasion of Iraq was an imperialist grab for oil, an international disgrace and was rightly condemned by millions around the world while it was taking place.

All you have to say was that Mr. Putin is right on the analogy and all Mr Obama need to have said was we should not have done it.

[rep the dems]

263. Simply moronic.

Do you really need to be explained the difference between invasion and annexation? Tell me, did Iraq vote for Obama or Romney in the last election? Is their governor one of the ones who's pushing a right to work agenda? I can't seem to remember. And yes, the oil issue. Thank goodness we stole all their resources and have such cheap gas now, right?

You're hardly the only one here who had a problem with the Iraq War. If that's the case then you should have JUST AS BIG an issue with what Russia has done and probably more so. Instead you double down on your idiotic attacks against the President who opposed that war and helped bring it to an end. Because you're an idiot.

[alcibiades_mystery]

267. Trash this trash

[flamingdem]

272. +1

[JTFrog]

270. FFS.

Some folks just derp and derp again.

[flamingdem]

273. +1

[LittleBlue]

278. Haha, Will skewers it again

The bots won't be happy

[truebrit71]

289. They are fuming...Pro$ense said he was a racist...

...because it's the sort of thing a RW racist would say....and a jury let it stand...

[LittleBlue]

304. I have had that one on ignore ages ago

Don't need any of that nonsense. Thanks for the update, though.

[Marrah_G]

340. Same

[WhiteTara]

280. You really disappoint me.

And you know why.

[hrmjustin]

284. Sorry but I can not agree with you calling the president names.

I don't know why you are doing this like this but I don't support it.

It is perfectly fine and necessary to hold his feet to the fire and say where he is wrong, but the manner in which you are choosing to do this is disruptive and unnecessary.

I hope you reconsider the way you critique him in the future.

[jeff47]

288. Will, you used to be worth reading.

Now you're too busy lying to be worth reading.

It's really sad.

[Catherina]

296. Obama needs a history lesson in the last 60 years of violent and brutal US Foreign policy

1950-53 (Korean War)
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-1961
Guatemala 1960
Congo 1964
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Grenada 1983
Lebanon 1983, 1984 (both Lebanese and Syrian targets)
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1980s
Nicaragua 1980s
Iran 1987
Panama 1989
Iraq 1991 (Persian Gulf War)
Kuwait 1991
Somalia 1993
Bosnia 1994, 1995
Haiti 1994–1995
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia 1999
Yemen 2002
Philippines 2002-present
Horn of Africa 2002-present
Iraq 1991-2003 (US/UK on regular basis)
Iraq 2003-present
Afghanistan 2001-present
Liberia 2003
Pakistan 2004-present
Somalia 2006-8, 2011
Trans Sahara 2007-present
Yemen 2009, 2011-present
Libya 2011
Uganda, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Central African Republic, South Sudan, Bondo, DR Congo 1987-present

The Startling Size of US Military Operations in Africa Sep. 6, 2013

[truebrit71]

302. But you see, he's playing ninth-level ninja chess...or something...

He could simply have said that the only similarities between the invasion of Iraq, and the annexation of Crimea is that they are BOTH wrong...

[Catherina]

344. +1000. That was the proper thing to say. It's worrisome that he couldn't say that.

It's looks like the US finally realized Russia's better at chess and we've moved to poker now.

[jeff47]

309. So that means invading Crimea is ok then? (nt)

[Catherina]

337. Nobody invaded Crimea, unless you want to count Nuland and her $5 Billion for regime change.

The people of Crimea overwhelmingly voted to be part of Russia in a referendum. Just like everyone knew they would which is why the US and EU fought so hard to stop the referendum.

If you want to discuss the countless violations of international law and invasions of sovereign countries, I refer you back to post you replied to.

[jeff47]

345. I like how you reverse the timeline

It's a nice touch when reality doesn't line up the way you'd like.

Russia invaded. Then they held a referendum. Where "No" was not one of the choices. And it's not clear that "undesirables" were allowed to vote.

But that gets in the way of the narrative, so it's time to reverse the timeline and quote RT.

[Catherina]

357. Lol. Ok. If you and the corporate-owned MSM say so n/t

[jeff47]

362. Yeah, much better to trust the Russia-owned media on the subject.

They're going to be 100% impartial!!!!

[Catherina]

391. That all you got? Very sad. The same people who opposed Bush on principle, not emotionally

oppose Obama's hypocrisy.

It's unfortunate you can't admit it and resort to 2nd grade debate tactics.

[jeff47]

613. You are arguing that one invasion is evil, and another invasion is good.

You are arguing that the invasion of Iraq was evil.
You are also arguing that the invasion of Crimea is good.

You probably shouldn't be tossing around complaints about debate tactics.

Also, you should bother to track down the sources used by people you read.

[nationalize the fed]

386. Your list doesn't include the 1953 overthrow of Iran's Mohammed Mossadeq

Here's a free documentary on Hulu, shows exactly how the US went about a coup. It's an excellent expose.

http://www.hulu.com/american-coup

short version

[Catherina]

406. You're right. There's a lot it doesn't include

like the Lebanese Civil War (1982–1984) or Operation Restore Hope, Somalia (1992–1994) and all our undeclared activities in countries like Colombia, Honduras, Venezuela, etc

Thanks for adding Mossadeq's overthrow and the video to boot.

[CJCRANE]

313. Something's changed about your posts, Will.

I enjoyed a lot of your previous work, even the "Parliament of Whores" piece which I vehemently disagreed with, but it was a magnificient piece of writing full of rhetorical bombast.

But now you're reduced to tawdry phrases worthy only of Frank Luntz.

I don't know if it's because you're under stress or trying to make a name for yourself in a different market.

[1000words]

326. Any thoughts regarding the point Will raised?

Your disappointment in his writing is irrelevant.

[CJCRANE]

330. I've posted my thoughts about Will's OP. I've also recced other OPs on both sides

of the argument.

I will make a comment on those OPs if I have something new or interesting to add.

[joshcryer]

323. Here we go again.

I look forward to the Hillary bashing threads from you this time next year.

I really really do.

[grasswire]

328. ...in the spirit of Jimmy Fallon....

.....Thank you, Will Pitt, for bringing more socks, moles, and others out of the woodwork and into the daylight. It's useful.

[cui bono]

661. Yep.

I smell some dirty socks. Perhaps salty... One in particular is lecturing WP about DU rules multiple times in here when they've only been here less than 3 months and have 2 hides themselves. That is rich.

[treestar]

332. Nothing in that paragraph is untrue

He is defending the USA from a charge of hypocrisy.

Besides, we do not have to let Putin do anything he wants because of Iraq. We got Bush out of office and got out of Iraq, so we made it right.

[WilliamPitt]

339. My brain just died.

[TheSarcastinator]

347. that's just the doublethink sinking in as history gets rewritten

Just relax: you might learn to like it.

[treestar]

356. Do you have a real response?

He is comparing it to Crimea. There is no there there - go find something else to be outraged about. I'm sure you will be able to within a day or two.

[Liberal Veteran]

359. From where I stand, that train already left the station a while back. -nt

[Marrah_G]

343. what?

[Rex]

350. Says the guy that thinks it is OKAY for the CIA to spy on Congress.

I mean if they have nothing to hide right? Your words.

[treestar]

358. Why should Congress have anything private?

What shouldn't Congress be transparent? Just like you demand of the CIA of all organizations?

Why are you not demanding transparency of Congress? Your arguments end up piling up to a point where they contradict each other.

[Rex]

367. I am amazed you do not see the wrong in your statement.

Maybe I should not be, you think it is okay for the CIA to spy on Congress...simply amazing, do you know they are forbidden to spy on people in America? Nah, why even bring that up you don't care.

[cui bono]

663. How is Congress supposed to act boldly in their investigations if the CIA is watching all they do?

That is quite naive of you to think that is okay.

That has nothing to do with transparency. It has to do with feeling free to investigate whomever and whatever Congress feels is warranted without having to feel threatened that something bad could happen to you if what you are investigating is found out and is undesired by TPTB.

I take it you also think NSA spying on American citizens is okay too?

Yeah, fuck the rule of law and the constitution. Those are just quaint ideas.

[Rex]

676. This is why I cannot in good faith take that poster seriously about anything.

If they do not even understand the fundamentals, why in the world are the lecturing other people?

[grasswire]

371. outrageous

Tell that to the tens of thousands of limbless, paralyzed, blind, brain-damaged, PTSD-d veterans. Tell it to the mothers forever haunted by the knowledge that their son or daughter took the last breath fighting for a lie. Tell it to the parents of children maimed and ravaged by war.

For that matter, it's an outrage for you to say this to us here at home. Trillions of dollars have been diverted from our treasury, or borrowed from the Chinese, to finance this FUBAR war. That's money diverted from schools, bridges, medical care, mental health care, food for hungry children and Meals on Wheels, infrastructure of all kinds.

"We made it right"?

Outrageous.

[Dragonfli]

618. I believe the confusion may lie in the posters apparent belief

That to redefine something as right is the same as making it right.

Much like the similar belief some hold that redefining innocents killed as "enemy combatants killed" reduces innocent casualties to near zero.

In other words just saying:
"Being there - being killed by us - and being of a certain age makes them terrorists" actually transforms them into terrorists.

In the faith based mind, the innocent casualties are now terrorists because a new definition is being used, so we only ever kill terrorists.
In the faith based mind an illegal war is legal because we tried to make it legal via generous redefinition.

Such rationalization and redefinition's do not change reality, but the true believer thinks they do.

[truebrit71]

376. Just how in the fuck did we "make it right"?

Iraq was so badly fucked by the US invasion it will probably take a century to un-fuck itself, if at all...

Good grief...

[treestar]

418. We got out

OH, never mind. Geez you are determined to think Obama is no different than Bush. Good thing you didn't have to live through a McCain Presidency, as you apparently don't see that it would be different.

Obama did not get us in, so he "made it right" by getting out. WTF else do you want? Should be all live in sackcloth and ashes forever?

[truebrit71]

422. Um, how about un-killing all of the people that died for bushes lies?

Or un-bombing the shit out of innocent peoples homes and businesses?
Or un-torturing thousands of innocent Iraqis?

You don't get to bomb somewhere back to the fucking stone age, then leave and say "See!! Fixed it!!"

I honestly don't know how to fix that god-awful mess, but "getting out" is not "making it right" by a long shot...

[treestar]

426. so you were so offended by those words you

don't have to get the point. Just edit my post to not have them then. Since what you describe is impossible.

My point was of course, well you know what it was, you were just determined to think the worst.

[cui bono]

664. You didn't make a point. You said "We got out" and then launched into some word salad

about Obama and criticism.

You conveniently ignored the question you were asked about all the deaths we caused and the way we left Iraq and all the dead troops, maimed troops, troops left with PTSD. Does that really not matter to you? Getting out "made that right"?

Seriously?

[Capt. Obvious]

430. There you go again

taking it so personal.

[LittleBlue]

425. "We got Bush out of office"

No we didn't "get him out of office", he was reelected to a second term and was constitutionally prohibited from seeking a third.

we made it right

Oh goodie, I'll inform that families of the hundreds of thousands who died that we left and therefore "made it right".

Good grief, what an embarrassing and foolish post. Delete it.

[cui bono]

662. You have quite a low bar for making something right.

I guess in your world there would be no courts and no prisons.

And btw... there is no defense of the US on hypocrisy. It is there. Plain and simple.

[SidDithers]

354. Spin it, Will! Spin it!...

Tune in tomorrow, folks, to see what the next manufactured outrage will be.

Sid

[Logical]

553. LOL, coming from you that is funny! n-t

[Whisp]

687. I'm guessing Obama Bash game is about to end, next up is Michelle

that will get a fresh new round of clicks and applauds from the same bundle.

[berni_mccoy]

361. One thing to disagree with the meaning of a statement...

Another thing to be a ratfucker. Guess which one you are demonstrating...

(to the uninformed, ratfucker is actually a real political term see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratfucking).

[Nye Bevan]

366. Countries deploying troops in the Iraq War coalition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq

Anyone got a list of the countries participating in the Crimea invasion?

[Billy Budd]

456. and this means what???

No number of listed countries is going to change that we launched a war of aggression on the people of Iraq....at least the Russians are not dropping military explosives on top of people you know like in Baghdad...yeah I know we did not mean to kill them but when you drop a couple of tons of explosives in the middle of a city it may hurt someone...

[Divernan]

548. Ah yes, the Coalition of the Billing, as they were popularly known.

Strong-armed/bribed by US AID & the State Department. Moldova - 24; Tonga - 55; Iceland - TWO! What a pathetic international joke that "coalition" was!

[guyfromla]

369. Are you a real democrat

Yes I am pissed off with POTUS on many occasions like NSA Spying, but what is he trying to sell here? I still remember the days in 2006 when we were all aligned with the baboon in white house on troops surge etc. We all aligned with that monkey on Afghanistan. That trained ape also sold us the tax cut in the midst of 2 wars. THAT'S CALL SELLING. What is Obama selling here???

[grasswire]

380. speak for yourself

Aligned on the surge?

OK with Afghanistan?

[nadinbrzezinski]

384. So calling the current President "a used car salesman" is not ok

but calling the previous one "baboon" is a-ok?

This is what we call textbook example of hypocrisy.

We either can call any occupant names (which is a fine tradition in the editorial pages going back to oh President Washington), or we are not allowed to call any of them names.

Will Pitt is an editorial writer. I can guarantee you that in my writing no names will appear, but that is because I write straight reporting.

[CreekDog]

373. I kind of wince at calling Obama a "used car salesman"

I've never liked that comparison.

But any defense of him I could offer would exclude the statement you're reacting to. It's that bad. It made me wince.

He traveled the world to show that he wouldn't defend the starting of the Iraq War and now he's saying what? Seriously?

[Nine]

382. I think you're pulling a Shia LaBeouf.

Shia LeBeouf could have made a humble apology when his plagiarism first surfaced but his ego wouldn't let him. Or maybe he thought at first that he could get away with a plagiarized apology. But by the time his apology was found to be plagiarized, he knew he had gone too far. He had to either REALLY lose face with an apology for the apology or he had to find a way to spin it. He chose the latter. So now he's either pretending to have lost his mind or he's pretending that it's been some kind of performance art all along. But no one is falling for it.

I think you know that your "fuck you" and "piece of shit" language from that other thread was over the top and that your blame of Obama was illogical and unmerited. But you're too egotistical to apologize, so you're doubling down (as others have noted) and trying to put some new spin on it. "Used car salesman" is an offensive way to refer to our Democratic president, but I think you'd rather have people focus on and remember that part of it than the rest of it, which was even more offensive and childish. I think you've been waiting all this time for Obama to say or do something that would allow you to shoehorn in that phrase again so that you can pretend it was political critique all along rather than a grown man having a tantrum. Does "used car salesman" even fit this latest poutrage?

[msanthrope]

400. This echoes Skinner's critique above....

The polarizing language about the president makes a good faith discussion on the merits extremely difficult. You are a smart guy, and you knew that echoing the insult that you used in the previous shitstorm would get exactly the response you got. I didn't particularly appreciate the last shitstorm, and I'm not going to get much utility out of this one either. This one thread isn't the end of it -- there are going to be a half a dozen other threads that get started over the next few days to rehash the appropriateness of calling the president names.

Obviously, you received a lot of blowback for your last thread, and you are receiving a lot of blowback for this thread. I am not so naive to think that you or anyone else would actually back down in the face of that kind of resistance -- to do so would feel like admitting weakness. And I know you're not going to back down simply because the administrator of DU expressed his distaste for insulting the president -- here on DU I am The Power, and a good progressive can't be seen to be backing down from Speaking Truth. I get that.

I'm just hoping that maybe next time, when you or anyone else on DU is thinking about starting a thread in which you insult the president, you think about those of us who don't really appreciate it. I'm not telling you what to do. And I'm not trying to score points here. What I'm trying to do is simply to share a piece of information with you: Some of us don't like seeing the president insulted. What you choose to do with that information is entirely up to you.

[treestar]

419. That really nails it

You're a good observer of human behavior.

[steve2470]

421. agreed ! nt

[theboss]

383. So, what's the alternative?

My predecessor stole a country so, I guess, anyone can. No worries.

A President can't just completely annihilate a predecessor's credibility - particularly in foreign affairs - and expect it to have no damage upon himself.

[pansypoo53219]

393. small picture, 1 issue thinking. this is about halting putin AT crimea.

NOT about iWaq.

[HereSince1628]

398. Interesting KOS has had it with the 3rd Way, DLC. Maybe DU didn't change

KOS is raging against the 3rd Way/DLC, anti-populist pro wall street loving dems.

Perhaps the change is less in DU (or Kos) and more about DU not fulfilling your expectation

[ecstatic]

403. #plonk. Good riddance. nt

[heaven05]

414. you are nauseating,

sir. We didn't run roughshod over the international community? Cheney said it, "the oil would pay for the war". We left a people in chaos and misery. No infrastructure worth speaking of, hundreds of thousands of innocents killed in Iraq in the name of RW imperialism with the help of quite a few of our politicians from both sides of the aisle. You are nauseating. My memory is not that short. And the misery in Iraq goes......and on and on. This analogy of yours is out of bounds. My POTUS is a politician, but a better LEADER than we have had in 30+years.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

424. William Pitt, ladies and gentlleman...

The 7:30 show is EXACTLY the same as the 10:30 show. Enjoy the processed, pasteurized outrage!

[SolutionisSolidarity]

568. The beatings will continue until the outrage stops!

[swilton]

433. That the Iraq War was the subject of vigorous debate

in this country is totally laughable.

[TBF]

436. I don't like the glossing over of Iraq.

I really wish he would've said he was against invasion but overruled.

[valerief]

441. Didn't you get the memo? DU is a total fanzine now. nt

[Enthusiast]

443. Before the stolen election of 2000 this nation had a degree of respect.

Look what has happened to this once great nation since then. Fraud and corruption from sea to shining sea. Nothing but lies from the media. Look what they did to our nation.

[Arkana]

452. Apparently you don't know what the word "annexation" means.

I have a feeling it might have blunted your angry little rant if you did, though, so carry on.

[WilliamPitt]

495. Hm.

Invaded.

Occupied.

Plundered.

Built many bases.

Built largest US embassy in the world.

"Pulled out."

Thousands of US military contractors remain.

Resources now in the hands of US companies.

Yeah.

Pretty much the textbook definition.

Go back to bed.

[AuntPatsy]

612. You have much more patience than I do, I feel like I'm watching an occult surface and it's not so

Much worrying as it is strange at least to me but then again there is no one past or present who I give that much worship for.... I witnessed it during the bush lite years and it was not pretty than nor is it now regardless of whom the newest Idol being worshiped is...

[The Wizard]

457. Puked without

sticking my finger down my throat.

[Whisp]

462. I have a feeling Greenwald will be persuing this story from this angle as well.

Last edited Fri Mar 28, 2014, 12:22 PM - Edit history (1)

[NorthCarolina]

692. Actually, being compared to GG would be viewed as high praise by a true progressive.

You might want to select another comparable if your intent was to insult.

[leeroysphitz]

468. Yeah, but what are ya gonna do? n/t

[Billy Budd]

480. MLK said our nation was the Greatest purveyor of violence in the world

Last edited Thu Mar 27, 2014, 09:14 PM - Edit history (1)

That is worst than being a "used car salesman".....

[La Lioness Priyanka]

491. this is a dumb post. it shows a lack of serious thought. nt

[eShirl]

496. I'm starting to wonder about Obama Derangement Syndrome.

Is it a thing? Or no?

[gulliver]

511. This has been unrec'ed 127 times as of this post.

Yeesh, what a sad tailspin you are in.

[boston bean]

515. I'm not above criticizing the democratic president.

But I wouldn't call him a used car salesman.

come on... that's just a bit inflammatory, don't you think?

[alarimer]

516. I would have taken the opposite tack and said, "We fucked up in Iraq and we're sorry."

"But it doesn't make Russia right to do it as well. We were wrong. They are wrong."

How hard could that be?

[brett_jv]

518. I would LOVE to have seen the shitstorm that would've erupted had Obama replied:

"Well, yeah, that's a Great Question, and Komrade Vlad has a great point! For my part I was completely against the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and believe the USA (Bush/Cheney/Rummy in particular) engaged in innumerable violations of International Law and War Crimes! So, yeah, what the US did in Iraq was pretty much the same thing as what Russia is doing in Crimea. I guess we should remove the sanctions, I don't know what I was thinking. By all means, Komrade Vlad, carry on with your annexation, because the US has no moral authority anymore on the World Stage!"

Somehow I have to believe you've seriously failed to think about the ramifications of Obama's being brutally honest in response an interview question like the one at hand before you 'called him out' like this. It could EASILY have ended in single-digit approval ratings, Dems losing the Senate in November, and eventual impeachment/removal from office.

Being honest in the way you are demanding ... would've been absolutely the STUPIDEST fucking thing he could have possibly done.

Unless, of course, you're a right-winger who wants his presidency to fail.

Please don't ever think to become a campaign consultant for a Democrat, caused based on your reasoning here, I'd imagine you'd suck at it.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

519. Meanwhile, in a small basement on the other side of town,.......

........ a Tea Party wanabe is claiming Obama is a radical commie gay liberal out to destroy America from within.

[Kahuna]

520. He's rubber. You're glue. nt

[gcomeau]

521. Something is certainly utterly nauseating...

Any ETA for when all of us might expect you to get over your anger at your personal situation and start looking at the rest of the world and how Obama operates in it semi-rationally again?

[Raksha]

537. Thank you for not allowing the howling Blue Dog contingent to intimidate you, Will.

Somehow I didn't get around to telling you this before, but I approved of your using the term "used car salesman" about Obama in your earlier post, and couldn't understand why it generated so much outrage. This certainly isn't the DU I remember from 2004, when I was a newbie here.

Arguably, he may not have deserved it in the context of Obamacare, but he certainly does in this one. I'm glad you aren't afraid to keep using it.

[flvegan]

558. THE ARISTOCRATS!

[ZombieHorde]

634. Ha!

Awesome.

[Gothmog]

559. 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.

As a lawyer, there is a huge difference here.

[Ikonoklast]

571. It's no wonder Kucinich didn't have an ice cube chance's in Hell as a candidate.

He surrounded himself with incompetents when he was mayor of Cleveland, too.

[Whisp]

641. if my memory serves me, didn't someone we know pretend to work for Kucinich

but was really loyal to another runner?

hmmmm, maybe I'm mistaken.

[Jesus Malverde]

574. 'Utterly nauseating"

Imperial President Obama is not the President I voted for.

I am still waiting for the long deserved repudiation of the Bush crimes, I've given up expecting justice for the Bush era torture and murder.

Rehabilitated Cheney on TV, Neocon melieu at state, the pentagons Africa invasion, defense of the national security state. At least with Bush you knew who you were dealing with, something is seriously wrong and it needs to be called out.

Some might ridicule me for idealism, thats what I voted for.

[marble falls]

583. They sure get testy when the facts don't fit their narative, Will. Don't stop pointing out their

disconnects with reality.

[ncrainbowgrrl]

585. I lost track. Is there a point to this thread anymore?

If so...Couldn't find it.

[grahamhgreen]

587. "Used Car Salesman" IS TOTALLY innapropriate!!!!! The 'C' should be swapped for a 'W' :-)

[JEB]

620. Yeah, its got quite a few miles on it, but

just look at those beautiful SUPPORT THE TROOPS magnets and that FREEDOM ISN'T FREE bumper sticker. Just hose that trunk out and that dead body smell will go away.

[ALBliberal]

593. I used to follow you on Truthout.org

And when I saw you as a regular contributor here I have to say I was impressed. I do not get why you would talk about our president as you do. Dear Lord the political climate Obama has had to navigate through! Surely you of all people recognize this. I am starting to wonder if you use DU as some sort of dumping ground while saving other venues for your more eloquent and politically tame prose. These days I cringe when I see your posts. DIVISION always follows.

[UTUSN]

615. Since truth-to-power is the word (O.K., three) of the day, fwiw:

My truth(s) :

* DU is my home.
* The key word is “Democratic.”
* Originally it was my ICU/burn-rehab for Coup 2000.
* I detest indescribably all things Rethug, personalized via Shrub but whatever passing others.
* I have never used and never will use the Ignore/Trash functions.
* I love a high percentage of “most” as in “almost all” of DU, the sliver of dislike being cult/cliqueism.
* I have never liked the mirror of Faux’s m.o. of telling an audience what they want to hear, preaching to the choir.
* I have generally not personally attacked other DUers, while self-defending in flamefests and describing behaviors.
* I have long life political experience with “Democrats” who find some “reason” to turn against other Democrats.
* I support my Primary candidates full heartedly, but then support whoever is the Dem nominee, from whatever wing, even when I know they will lose.
* I have often screwed up myself and realize everybody has somebody dearly wanting them gone, including insignificant me.
* There have always been plenty of things I would say to Dem leaders IN PRIVATE, not via giving comfort to wingnuts.

To be more pertinent to the O.Poster, with the above points as context:

* I have always regarded him as a vanity/egoist-to-the-max poster, a show-boater, a faddist and flamebaiter, of the preaching-to-the-choir mirror/Faux m.o., useless to me since I already know what I believe, doing more harm than good for playing into the elitist and entitled stereotypes wingnuts purvey about Libs, has abused special privileges forever.

[GoneFishin]

621. K & R

[VanillaRhapsody]

627. Doubling down I see.....so are you trying to see how far you can push the limits of the

mission statement?

[steve2470]

637. agreed nt

[gulliver]

629. Another push for money and clicks...

...for the ironically named Truthout.

[VanillaRhapsody]

642. They even admit it outright now.....they think they have quite literally bought DU!

[LuvLoogie]

630. Saving my derision for the pukes.

You ask politicians to protect your delicate virtue as if you were the hottest piece of virgin ass in the kingdom.

[LuvLoogie]

635. Somebody looking for a hero?

[dhill926]

638. Well...

Fuck this.

[love_katz]

640. Given the nature of many of the comments posted here...

I feel quite a bit of trepidation about posting.

I find the tone of many people, that we can't criticize any democratic politicians, to be really off-putting. Doesn't anyone see the terrible irony in that? How is it a democracy if we can't say anything critical?

It was articles written by Will Pitt, (on a web site called Common Dreams?) that first brought me over to DU (via a link to an article by the Rude Pundit). I hate to think how worked up some of you would get, if you read what the Rude One has to say.

I want to thank Mr. Pitt, and the Rude Pundit for first directing me to DU, and also for being so outspoken when they don't like what is being done.

If we democrats have to think alike, speak alike, walk in lock-step, and blindly support what our government does in order to win elections, than what we win will not be democracy.

And, before the usual antagonists start telling me that honest discussion will keep people from voting for democratic candidates, I would suggest that you think again. Our current president was elected because he ran a campaign which promised hope and change. If the Democratic party will finally step up to the plate, and start real work on real change (as opposed to business as usual), then they will win elections by a LANDSLIDE! I have never, ever voted for repukes, or any of their ilk. Neither have I ever skipped voting in the entire time that's passed since I became eligible to vote. This idea that anyone who criticizes the president or any democratic politician will for sure cost us the elections in 2016 seems like a concept that is over the top, and off-kilter. No single individual, not even Will Pitt, can claim that kind of power and influence.

People may not like the words he used to criticize the President's reply to Putin, but it has certainly stirred up discussion amongst us. For those of you who are so incensed by Will's remarks, why not look at this as an opportunity to engage in discussion with those you see as being disaffected enough with the current official agenda, and try to find out why we might feel that way? After all, your real goal would hopefully be to find ways to get more people to join together under the Democratic banner, so that elections can be won. Ignoring those of us on the Left, who have been some of the stanchest supporters of the Democrats, is not going to help you achieve your goal.

And, if we can't handle some strong criticism from one of our own, how are we going to stand up to the unmerciful onslaught of the fundy fanatics and wrong wing nut jobs?

I guess, since I also frequently read the Rude Pundit, I am somewhat inoculated against strong language. I may not always agree with his opinions, but he often gives me something to chuckle about, and so did Molly Ivins, and Jim Hightower, etc.

Being expected to goose-step to the party line is not democratic, IMHO. Criticizing democratic politicians does not equal not voting for them. The repukes, and their horrid allies absolutely do NOT appeal.

Good luck to you, Will. Somehow this whole thread reminds me of the fried chicken flamefest.

[Blue_In_AK]

645. Thank you, voice of sanity.

[Divernan]

665. Thank you for your well thought out, reasonable, persuasive post.

[VanillaRhapsody]

677. No one has said that.....hyperbolic much?

Saying the level of criticism is beyond the pale ( and it is) and saying "No criticism of the President at all" is not the problem. The problem is allowing it to become the "Punch the President Underground" is NOT conducive to the stated mission of this site....and Midterm elections are FAST approaching.

[KoKo]

693. Well said...Recommend!

[MrMickeysMom]

704. I want to thank you for that, too...

It's sites like Common Dreams and a few others, besides DU that have kept so many sane. It's a little too creepy here of late. However, it's building up to a hopeful turning point.

[on point]

660. Obama makes an outright lie. Iraq was a war crime period

We did work with international law, or nations. Bush blackmailed and bullied countries into participating, except of course the co conspirator Britain

[VanillaRhapsody]

680. So what did you want him to say....lie and say that they didn't instead...

Do you think Putin will ever realize, regret and correct his annexation and give it back to the Crimeans?

[cui bono]

666. While I agree with the sentiment of the post, I would not have said "used car salesman" again.

You know it's just going to get certain people riled up and now they have that to use against you rather than have to actually react to the substance of your post. Granted, a lot wouldn't do that anyway, but still, you've given them all an out from thinking about the substance of your OP.

And it takes away from the discourse for anyone who disagrees with you that actually wants to have a genuine discussion about it. If I had a disagreement with someone's position and they wrote something like that I would very likely dismiss it because it would make me feel that they were disingenuous.

The first time you used the term was due to an angry outburst, but this time it was not, so I can't defend it and find it unfortunate.

That said, Obama saying what he said puts us one step closer to accepting the Iraq War as a legitimate war rather than a war crime. And it makes yet another issue more of a bipartisan issue when it should remain clear that that was a criminal neo-con war based on lies and propaganda. No one should ever speak any words to soften that, ever.

[Rex]

683. Maybe he is secretly enjoying watching a few people here froth and gnash their teeth.

It is quite obvious who wants him gone from this site.

[ozone_man]

689. You nailed it!

Your post is a healthy dose of reality.

[itsrobert]

695. That's President Used Car Salesman to you

n/t

[Gothmog]

701. Russia has 50,000 to 100,000 troops on the eastern border of Ukraine

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.

[Kahuna]

708. Time to put an end to this nonsense. Pitt supported and embraced John Kerry..

who actually supported the invasion for president in 2004. Pitt was absolutely all agog over John Kerry's candidacy. I don't recall John Kerry renouncing his vote at that time. Yet, pitt loved himself some John Kerry. Does pitt think that Kerry would on the world stage admit that what was done in Iraq was "illegal?" Does pitt think John Kerry on the world stage wouldn't say exactly the same thing the president said? I don't think he's that dumb. Disingenuous maybe, but not dumb.

Maybe some of the folks who weren't here ten years ago and who are agreeing with and defending pitt on this don't know this bit of history, but there are enough of us who were here in 2004 and we know what went down.