PDA

View Full Version : Obama Administration: Don't Compare Syria and Iraq




aGameOfThrones
08-29-2013, 10:35 PM
Obama administration officials have rejected comparisons between the buildup to the 2003 Iraq war and the military strikes in Syria the administration is currently contemplating.

"What we saw in that circumstance was an administration that was searching high and low to produce evidence to justify a military invasion, an open-ended military invasion of another country, with the final goal being regime change," White House Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest said of Iraq on Wednesday.

On Syria, Earnest told reporters President Obama "has been very clear that he is not contemplating an open-ended military action," and again drew a distinction between the two scenarios.

"What we're talking about here is something that's very discrete and limited," said Earnest.

State Department Deputy Spokeswoman Marie Harf also rejected any comparisons between the debate over intervention in Syria and the Iraq war.

"I do not think there are any legitimate comparisons between what we were talking about in Iraq and what we're talking about today," Harf told reporters.

Harf said that the discussion over whether intelligence showed Assad was personally tied to the chemical weapons attack and the discussions about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction are vastly different.

"Nobody needs an intelligence community assessment to know that chemical weapons were used [in Syria]," said Harf. "In Iraq, we were waiting for an intelligence community assessment to determine whether they even existed."

She added that both the circumstances on the ground and the Obama administration's goals, if it were to launch strikes against Syria, are in sharp contrast to the Bush administration's intervention in Iraq.

"What the intelligence is looking at, the situation and the potential responses are of such a grossly different nature," said Harf. "Nobody's talking about boots on the ground in Syria; nobody's talking about regime change through military options."

When challenged by reporters over whether the faulty intelligence used to justify the Iraq war has set the bar higher for justification for military action in Syria, Harf again said that the situations are not compatible.

"I think we've been clear in this administration that we are not going to repeat the same mistakes of the Iraq war," she said. "That's why we ended the war. Period."

http://gma.yahoo.com/obama-administration-dont-compare-syria-iraq-012316146--abc-news-politics.html

fr33
08-29-2013, 10:49 PM
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

The emperor has no clothes.

Mani
08-30-2013, 12:27 AM
MOST of the people in the comments seem to be against Syria, and are calling B.S. on the "Dont compare"

Although one guy annoyed the fuck out of me:

"As far as I'm concerned Iraq was a success. We removed Sadam Hussein from power after he used weapons of mass destruction on the Kurds men, women and children."



Iraq a success?

WTF!

How blind are these fucks?



I couldn't help myself, I had to reply:


Almost $1 Trillion dollars in tax payer money gone. 120K iraqi civilians and non combat people dead. 5K dead US soldiers (which means 5,000 american families lost their loved ones). 30K seriously wounded US soldiers. Over 100K other US soldiers with various injuries. 3K US soldiers from iraq have committed suicide post war. Dept of Health states 22 veterans per day kill themselves.

Iraq is one hundred times less stable than prior to Saddam's regime. Islamist extremists have taken over the country, and tried to eliminate all Christians, killing over 1,000. Islamist extremists had no power previously, and 1.5 million Christians lived peacefully prior to "the Iraq war". Now they are hunted and killed and churches bombed constantly. All faiths, all people, are attacked, hunted, bombed and killed. The country has no infrastructure and terrorism is worse then ever in the history of the country of Iraq.

After all the costs of life and money and time. The country is in one of the worst shapes in history.

That's success?

jclay2
08-30-2013, 12:30 AM
My only question is when does Obama decide to "go it alone"?

thoughtomator
08-30-2013, 12:59 AM
Obama has put himself in such a bad situation, I fear that he is about to do something historically stupid.

paulbot24
08-30-2013, 01:01 AM
Isn't it interesting to read in the articles how much Obama doesn't need Congressional approval? I was reading about Cameron in the UK and the article kept going on about how much he did not need support from Parliament but chose to attempt to get it anyways. Of course, the article linked to another one about how Obama similarly doesn't need approval from our Congress here, but that it would be wise politically to attempt it anyways. WTF? Do these people not understand checks and balances? The President needs Congressional authority, except of course when Congress won't give it to him, in which case they just cite some babble about international law and then they don't need it anymore...... Is anybody else sick of this shit?

Elias Graves
08-30-2013, 05:58 AM
Obama has put himself in such a bad situation, I fear that he is about to do something historically stupid.

Oh well. Just add it to the list of his other historically stupid mistakes.

Lucille
08-30-2013, 08:29 AM
MOST of the people in the comments seem to be against Syria, and are calling B.S. on the "Dont compare"

Although one guy annoyed the fuck out of me:

"As far as I'm concerned Iraq was a success. We removed Sadam Hussein from power after he used weapons of mass destruction on the Kurds men, women and children."



Iraq a success?

WTF!

How blind are these fucks?



I couldn't help myself, I had to reply:


Almost $1 Trillion dollars in tax payer money gone. 120K iraqi civilians and non combat people dead. 5K dead US soldiers (which means 5,000 american families lost their loved ones). 30K seriously wounded US soldiers. Over 100K other US soldiers with various injuries. 3K US soldiers from iraq have committed suicide post war. Dept of Health states 22 veterans per day kill themselves.

Iraq is one hundred times less stable than prior to Saddam's regime. Islamist extremists have taken over the country, and tried to eliminate all Christians, killing over 1,000. Islamist extremists had no power previously, and 1.5 million Christians lived peacefully prior to "the Iraq war". Now they are hunted and killed and churches bombed constantly. All faiths, all people, are attacked, hunted, bombed and killed. The country has no infrastructure and terrorism is worse then ever in the history of the country of Iraq.

After all the costs of life and money and time. The country is in one of the worst shapes in history.

That's success?

Nice!

Don't forget this:

CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam Use Chemical Weapons
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-27/how-times-have-changed-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-use-chemical-weapons

Cavuto repeated that BS (in bold) in his interview with Ron too. Too bad RP didn't mention that little detail.

Matt Collins
08-30-2013, 08:35 AM
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.


Nothing to see here, please move along:

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view4/3656815/nothing-to-see-here-o.gif

specsaregood
08-30-2013, 08:36 AM
My only question is when does Obama decide to "go it alone"?

I'd prefer to rephrase that to: My only question is when does Obama decide to "go mad dog"?

Matt Collins
08-30-2013, 08:38 AM
Whenever a politician talks, ask yourself "what do they gain if I believe what they are saying?"

jkr
08-30-2013, 08:39 AM
OK
"SYRIA" = 'NAM


better?

jtap
08-30-2013, 10:05 AM
Isn't it interesting to read in the articles how much Obama doesn't need Congressional approval? I was reading about Cameron in the UK and the article kept going on about how much he did not need support from Parliament but chose to attempt to get it anyways. Of course, the article linked to another one about how Obama similarly doesn't need approval from our Congress here, but that it would be wise politically to attempt it anyways. WTF? Do these people not understand checks and balances? The President needs Congressional authority, except of course when Congress won't give it to him, in which case they just cite some babble about international law and then they don't need it anymore...... Is anybody else sick of this shit?

/raises hand

Lucille
08-30-2013, 10:15 AM
Isn't it interesting to read in the articles how much Obama doesn't need Congressional approval? I was reading about Cameron in the UK and the article kept going on about how much he did not need support from Parliament but chose to attempt to get it anyways. Of course, the article linked to another one about how Obama similarly doesn't need approval from our Congress here, but that it would be wise politically to attempt it anyways. WTF? Do these people not understand checks and balances? The President needs Congressional authority, except of course when Congress won't give it to him, in which case they just cite some babble about international law and then they don't need it anymore...... Is anybody else sick of this shit?

80% of Americans.

Poll Finds Overwhelming Majority Want Obama to Seek Congressional Approval for Syria Intervention
http://reason.com/blog/2013/08/30/poll-finds-overwhelming-majority-want-ob

mczerone
08-30-2013, 10:54 AM
See, you can't compare our planning/propagandizing/lying to their planning/propagandizing/lying because we want "limited airstrikes" to overthrow a regime and they wanted a full ground invasion to overthrow a regime.

TOTALLY different. :rolleyes:

Lucille
08-30-2013, 11:06 AM
Isn't it interesting to read in the articles how much Obama doesn't need Congressional approval? I was reading about Cameron in the UK and the article kept going on about how much he did not need support from Parliament but chose to attempt to get it anyways. Of course, the article linked to another one about how Obama similarly doesn't need approval from our Congress here, but that it would be wise politically to attempt it anyways. WTF? Do these people not understand checks and balances? The President needs Congressional authority, except of course when Congress won't give it to him, in which case they just cite some babble about international law and then they don't need it anymore...... Is anybody else sick of this shit?

https://sphotos-b-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1150253_576957242340147_932149881_n.jpg