Iraq, some real truths.

[UShadItComing]

Colpy wrote:

DU rounds are typically used against armor. Clinton did not even want to get involved in Kosovo except in a support role but NATO forces were being embarrassed and spent the bulk of their time stepping aside as Serbians marched muslims away to be executed.

No, that's all wrong. Nato wasn't involved in the Kosovo conflict of 99 until the US led Nato war against the Serbs began in March 99 for the alleged ethnic cleansing of ethnic Albanians. The US made claims of huge mass graves but the graves never did materialize except in small numbers and they contained the remains of ethnic Albanians, Romas, and Serbs too. Claims of mass graves being found never did pan out to be anything other than what would be expected in a time of war. Nothing near the scale of the biggest mass graves ever created on the face of the earth when the US plowed the remains of Iraqis, including dieing Iraqis, under the sands of the desert in the thousands.

You should try to not confuse your wars of the Balkans.

 

[Colpy]

Colpy wrote:

DU rounds are typically used against armor. Clinton did not even want to get involved in Kosovo except in a support role but NATO forces were being embarrassed and spent the bulk of their time stepping aside as Serbians marched muslims away to be executed.
​

​

Ahhh...I didn't write that.

FAIL again!

 

[Machjo]

What people keep forgetting is that Saddam's possession of WMDs was Conventional Wisdom at the time.....largely because Saddam himself behaved as if he were hiding weapons. His attitude towards the weapons inspection teams and UN oversight infered strongly that he was hiding something......that combined with his history of development and use of such weapons......

Saddam was walking a tightrope between keeping the UN and the west from invading because of his flouting of UN regulations....and keeping Iran convinced he was still capable of defending his borders....with WMD.

He blew it.

If the world was so convinced, then why did the UN refuse to grant the US permission to invade?

Personally, I was for the invasion of Iraq in principle precisely because of his flouting of international laws. But the flip side of this was that if we are to invade him for having flouted international law, then we ought to respect international law in the process too. Since the UN had not granted authorization to invade, this thus made the war itself illegal an thus the US no better.

To take an example. If you steal a chocolate bar, yes, you've violated the law. But if I then take you to the back of my shop and beat you to death then am I any better? Surely I could have called the police and let the proper authorities deal with it in accordance with the law, no?

What's the difference?

 

[CDNBear]

Ahhh...I didn't write that.
​

FAIL again!

Seems to be a habit of the member in question.

 

[UShadItComing]

What people keep forgetting is that Saddam's possession of WMDs was Conventional Wisdom at the time.....largely because Saddam himself behaved as if he were hiding weapons. His attitude towards the weapons inspection teams and UN oversight infered strongly that he was hiding something......that combined with his history of development and use of such weapons......

Saddam was walking a tightrope between keeping the UN and the west from invading because of his flouting of UN regulations....and keeping Iran convinced he was still capable of defending his borders....with WMD.

He blew it.

What a pathetic apology for the US! Apologizing for the truth which is: The US invaded Iraq on the pretense that Saddam was hiding and maintaining *WMD's. UN weapons inspectors were continuing the search when the US made it impossible to continue because of it's political pressure and US fear tactics that Iraq would obtain a nuclear weapon soon. When the truth that Saddam no longer had any WMD's, the truth was revealed that the US used lies and innuendoes to justify another of their wars of aggression.

And of course as is always the case, some people even today can apologize for the US with all sorts of Orwellian logic and continue to justify the Iraq war. And even as the apologists attempt their doublespeak they will betray themselves with other varied and sundry excuses for the war. Such as, Saddam murdered his own people or Saddam was going to get a bomb or, well, you name it Colpy.

*So-called weapons of mass destruction because the term was coined by the US for the weapons Saddam was supposed to still have in his possession. Prior to the US demonization efforts against Iraq, WMD's were entirely different weapons. Weapons that truly were capable of mass destruction, such as weapons the US used on Iraq. Gas warfare was never considerd to be a weapon of mass destruction.

Just in case anybody want to know the truth about WMD's and look it up. Not likely on this forum of course.

 

[Machjo]

But a simple question, Colpy:

How do you defend fighting an illegal war with the intention of upholding international law. Does it not become self-contradictory?

And UShaditComing, isn't you're login name somewhat unnecessarily confrontational?

This by the way is a revealing video:

YouTube - Colin Powell Saying He Was Misled Before UN Speech on WMDs

YouTube - Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice Tell The Truth About Iraq

 

[UShadItComing]

If the world was so convinced, then why did the UN refuse to grant the US permission to invade?

Personally, I was for the invasion of Iraq in principle precisely because of his flouting of international laws. But the flip side of this was that if we are to invade him for having flouted international law, then we ought to respect international law in the process too. Since the UN had not granted authorization to invade, this thus made the war itself illegal an thus the US no better.

To take an example. If you steal a chocolate bar, yes, you've violated the law. But if I then take you to the back of my shop and beat you to death then am I any better? Surely I could have called the police and let the proper authorities deal with it in accordance with the law, no?

What's the difference?

Machjo, Grant them only that to which they have a right to be granted. To say that Saddam was flouting international law is going too far because it comparison to Israel's flouting of international law and UNSC resolutions, Iraq was not near as much in violation. In fact Saddam was doing what he could to save his country from invasion by the US which was inevitable. An invasion which we both know was a trumped up invasion for phony reasons. I'm supposing that you are aware of Glaspie's work prior to the war, as I know that you are aware of the phony buildup of troops and armour on the Saudi border. Not to mention that fact that the Kuwaitis worked in collusion with the US to bring about Saddam's reaction.

And as a result of the above, I am of the opinion that Saddam's flouting of international was wholly justifiable. Would the murder of millions of his people not justify anything?

Machjo, My name is intentionally confrontational. If I called myself Iraqhaditcoming wouldn't most americans gleefully accept it as a fine statement of the truth? My name is a statement of the truth that most americans are unable to accept, even though many are coming to accept the truth when it's stated in a more gentle way. Your name's o.k. with me, even though I find it not making much of a statement when you have the opportunity to do so.

 

[Machjo]

Machjo, Grant them only that to which they have a right to be granted. To say that Saddam was flouting international law is going too far because it comparison to Israel's flouting of international law and UNSC resolutions, Iraq was not near as much in violation. In fact Saddam was doing what he could to save his country from invasion by the US which was inevitable. An invasion which we both know was a trumped up invasion for phony reasons. I'm supposing that you are aware of Glaspie's work prior to the war, as I know that you are aware of the phony buildup of troops and armour on the Saudi border. Not to mention that fact that the Kuwaitis worked in collusion with the US to bring about Saddam's reaction.

And as a result of the above, I am of the opinion that Saddam's flouting of international was wholly justifiable. Would the murder of millions of his people not justify anything?

I agree and disagree with you. To take aggressive action against Ira for violating international law but not against Israel for the same is a double standard, granted.

however, the idea that Iraq can violate international law because the US does is something I cannot accept. Just because you violate the law does not mean I have a right to break the law too.

Quite simply, I'd say Iraq was wrong in refusing nuclear inspections, the US was right to request permission from the UN to invade Iraq, but the US was wrong in then attacking Iraq in contradiction of international law.

As for the UN granting the US permission to invade Iraq, I'm still undecided on that front. But even if I should conclude that the UN was wrong in not granting the US permission to invade Iraq, I'd still say the US was wrong in violating international law. Laws, even those we disagree with, are there for a reason. Respect for the law is a basic principle in its own right, independent of whether we agree with that law.

 

[petros]

"DU" is a refined material that is still 97% active. They are reactor rod materials that would normally cost billions of dollars and billions of years to be considered "safe".

 

[Machjo]

"DU" is a refined material that is still 97% active. They are reactor rod materials that would normally cost billions of dollars and billions of years to be considered "safe".

Or you dump it far away from your homeland to make your country safe from them8O

Now the irony would be if Iraq decided to collect all of these materials and recycle them into its army. Suddenly, Iraq would have come closer to having WMD's than it had before the war.

 

[UShadItComing]

I agree and disagree with you. To take aggressive action against Ira for violating international law but not against Israel for the same is a double standard, granted.

however, the idea that Iraq can violate international law because the US does is something I cannot accept. Just because you violate the law does not mean I have a right to break the law too.

In the technicality and in a perfect world, your reply is correct of course. If a person comes and shoots my brother dead I don't have a right to go and shoot his brother dead or him dead. By the same token of fairness, if one nation bombs another nation illegally and in contravention of what the UN stands for, that aggreived nation doesn't have the right to bomb the aggressor nation. The UN was formed to find a solution to that sort of dispute, at least in part. So my point is, if the US is bent on invading Iraq and deposing Saddam then we would have to say that Saddam must remain inside the law in his reaction. In the technical sense this would be correct but in the real and moral sense it makes no sense in the least. Therefore I would consider that anything Iraq did in it's defence and in an attempt to disuade the US would have been admissable in my opinion. If Iraq had acted militarily against the US in an attempt to dissuade the US before the US resorted to military action against Iraq, then I think your objection could be valid. Of course Iraq didn't.

Quite simply, I'd say Iraq was wrong in refusing nuclear inspections, the US was right to request permission from the UN to invade Iraq, but the US was wrong in then attacking Iraq in contradiction of international law.

Only at some final point in time did Iraq refuse inspections. In retrospect, now that we know that the US was bent on war I think we need to side with Iraq when Iraq began to understood that the inspections were serving the US the opportunity to spy on Iraq and use that information in the inevitable upcoming war. If you don't agree then I would be happy to hear more from you on the issue.

As for the UN granting the US permission to invade Iraq, I'm still undecided on that front. But even if I should conclude that the UN was wrong in not granting the US permission to invade Iraq, I'd still say the US was wrong in violating international law. Laws, even those we disagree with, are there for a reason. Respect for the law is a basic principle in its own right, independent of whether we agree with that law.

I don't quite understand why you should be undecided when you know that the US deceptions that were used dishonestly by the US were the tools that were convincing to the UN. I refer to the excellent videos you posted as examples. Which incidentally, I was fully aware of but was quite happy to see posted nonetheless. I don't think we need to convince each other of most of the facts; it's the others who won't pay attention to facts who are the problems.

 

[Machjo]

In the technicality and in a perfect world, your reply is correct of course. If a person comes and shoots my brother dead I don't have a right to go and shoot his brother dead or him dead. By the same token of fairness, if one nation bombs another nation illegally and in contravention of what the UN stands for, that aggreived nation doesn't have the right to bomb the aggressor nation. The UN was formed to find a solution to that sort of dispute, at least in part. So my point is, if the US is bent on invading Iraq and deposing Saddam then we would have to say that Saddam must remain inside the law in his reaction. In the technical sense this would be correct but in the real and moral sense it makes no sense in the least. Therefore I would consider that anything Iraq did in it's defence and in an attempt to disuade the US would have been admissable in my opinion. If Iraq had acted militarily against the US in an attempt to dissuade the US before the US resorted to military action against Iraq, then I think your objection could be valid. Of course Iraq didn't.

Correction. International law already allows for self defense if a country is invaded. On that front, Iraq was in fact fully within its rights in accordance with international law to thwart an illegal invasion of its soil on the part of the US seeing that that war was not legally sanctioned by the international community. However, Iraq had violated many laws especially against the Kurds, etc. for instance.

 

[Colpy]

if one nation bombs another nation illegally and in contravention of what the UN stands for, that aggreived nation doesn't have the right to bomb the aggressor nation.

Wrong,....it is called self-defense

Directly from the Charter of the United Nations:

Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs

 

[UShadItComing]

Correction. International law already allows for self defense if a country is invaded. On that front, Iraq was in fact fully within its rights in accordance with international law to thwart an illegal invasion of its soil on the part of the US seeing that that war was not legally sanctioned by the international community. However, Iraq had violated many laws especially against the Kurds, etc. for instance.

And you will notice what I led off with in that post:

In the technicality and in a perfect world, your reply is correct of course.

For some reason you don't want to accept that in the spirit in which it was written and so you just repeat the technicality to which I referred in essense. But I'm not here to debate the fine points with you of all people. Your semi-serious, halfhearted, and indecisive defence of the US is not being ignored.

And as I should have mentioned more clearly, the UN charter was formed at least in part to come to the rescue of small nations being attacked illegally by larger and more powerful nations. That's why, in one example of late, Georgia took it's complaint against Russia to the UN for a remedy to their grievances. One point I/you made was that the US fabricated evidence presented to the UN which led to the cocked up invasion of Iraq and hence the further destruction of Iraq, the murder of hundreds of thousands, and the US arranged kangaroo court which hung Saddam.

Something we can further note is that the US and it's leaders were guiltier than Saddam in numbers slain than Saddam ever could have been, even with the padded numbers used against him by the US in their quest to justify their wars. As your own video asked the question, who will be held responsible for the lies for the wars and what will be the justice.

I don't expect to convince others of the facts but I think I don't even have to attempt to convince you, considering that you have obviously made it your business to know.

Considering all the evidence and in spite of a few objections which you pose beside the point, the US is undoubtedly the bully and the aggressor acting against international law. Or more correctly, not even subscribing to international law on the part of their own.

OH, and as an afterthought, this quote of mine is correct:

if one nation bombs another nation illegally and in contravention of what the UN stands for, that aggreived nation doesn't have the right to bomb the aggressor nation.

Engaging in a bombing war with the US is not self defence, even considering that Iraq was capable of such. Self defence is something entirely different from engaging in an allout war. Which of course is one of the purposes of the UN to prevent, as I said earlier.

Colpy, go play.

 

[YukonJack]

UShaditComing, you remind me of aal the evil characters in the Batman TV series.

At the end Batman always declared (pardon me if I paraphrase): "If only his talent had been used to something good....."

If the energy in all your vitriolic and vicious posts, if the hatred you have for America were utilized in something positive the world would be a much better place.

But don't feel alone. Cliffy, JBeee and many others will be happy to accompany you to the place reserved for hateful indivuduals like you.

 

[Colpy]

And you will notice what I led off with in that post: For some reason you don't want to accept that in the spirit in which it was written and so you just repeat the technicality to which I referred in essense. But I'm not here to debate the fine points with you of all people. Your semi-serious, halfhearted, and indecisive defence of the US is not being ignored.

And as I should have mentioned more clearly, the UN charter was formed at least in part to come to the rescue of small nations being attacked illegally by larger and more powerful nations. That's why, in one example of late, Georgia took it's complaint against Russia to the UN for a remedy to their grievances. One point I/you made was that the US fabricated evidence presented to the UN which led to the cocked up invasion of Iraq and hence the further destruction of Iraq, the murder of hundreds of thousands, and the US arranged kangaroo court which hung Saddam.

Something we can further note is that the US and it's leaders were guiltier than Saddam in numbers slain than Saddam ever could have been, even with the padded numbers used against him by the US in their quest to justify their wars. As your own video asked the question, who will be held responsible for the lies for the wars and what will be the justice.

I don't expect to convince others of the facts but I think I don't even have to attempt to convince you, considering that you have obviously made it your business to know.

Considering all the evidence and in spite of a few objections which you pose beside the point, the US is undoubtedly the bully and the aggressor acting against international law. Or more correctly, not even subscribing to international law on the part of their own.

OH, and as an afterthought, this quote of mine is correct:

Engaging in a bombing war with the US is not self defence, even considering that Iraq was capable of such. Self defence is something entirely different from engaging in an allout war. Which of course is one of the purposes of the UN to prevent, as I said earlier.

Colpy, go play.

Yep, no doubt the US and allies should have finished the job and done away with Saddam et al in the First Gulf War. A damn shame they did not, as the second was immensely costly in Iraqi lives......

And yes, a bombing campaign, such as Israel adopts against rocket attacks, is legitimate self-defense. Whether you, or the idiots at the UN for that matter, like it or don't.

I sincerely hope Iraq stabilizes and emerges from this nightmare somewhat better than it was before....

Certainly the Americans make serious mistakes.....

But your defense of Saddam Hussein's rule is nonsensical.......and that is being polite about it. And no, I am not talking about US propaganda....just consult ANY NGO concerned with human rights on the matter.

Positions such as that completely discredit you as a serious debater.......one has to deal with reality to be taken seriously.

Oh, btw, NOBODY with a brain gives a crap about international law....it is a joke.

 

[UShadItComing]

UShaditComing, you remind me of aal the evil characters in the Batman TV series.

At the end Batman always declared (pardon me if I paraphrase): "If only his talent had been used to something good....."

If the energy in all your vitriolic and vicious posts, if the hatred you have for America were utilized in something positive the world would be a much better place.

But don't feel alone. Cliffy, JBeee and many others will be happy to accompany you to the place reserved for hateful indivuduals like you.

Yes, and I love you too yukonjack, even though it's you who is the hateful pig. But do you ever stop to think that the people who defend the US when it is guilty of all the crimes I have related to are more guility than me? Is it not vicious and vitriolic to defend US perpetrated murder of civilians in numerous small countries when the reasons for those wars have been shown to be fabricated out of whole cloth and presented to the UN in order to justify war? Do these warmongers have no conscience or human dignity at all?

Machjo, As we're not making much headway right at the moment I'll take this opportunity to bring up the question of Saddam gassing the Kurds. You are probably familiar with Stephen Pelletiere's CIA report on same. Here's a link for you and for others who can bear to learn something. Supposing there is anybody on this forum who cares to learn something that flies in the face of US propaganda.

:: www.uruknet.info :: informazione dal medio oriente :: information from middle east :: [vs-1]

In my opinion there is little doubt that Pelletier was one of, if not 'the' person to know the truth. That leads to the question of whether or not Pelletiere was lying. What do you believe? Was Pelletiere lying and if he was then what was the incentive to lie and blame the gassing of the Kurds on Iran? I would surely grant that the CIA has lied and been caught in it's lies on many occasions but the evidence presented on this case seems to point to a very comprehensive examination of the evidence presented by Pelletiere.

Before you answer I don't mind telling you that I am of the opinion that he was telling the truth and he spilled the beans at a bad time for the US. Of course you understand that this was one of the main justifications the US used for their war.

Colpy says:

Oh, btw, NOBODY with a brain gives a crap about international law....it is a joke.

Machjo, note the above as we two at least take each othere seriously and it appears that we both take international law seriously. Even though it is true that the US does not subscribe to international law for it's own and won't recognize the court in the Hague. Notice that what the member in question says and accept that that is indeed the opinion of the US and many, many of it's people.

Is there any sense in appealing to these kind of people's sense of human decency and a sense of humanitarian justice ever being served?

Why don't they just say, I don't care and walk away from the discussion? Not just this member but others too who attempt to spam this thread with mockery and a bag of popcorn for a joke. If they have no decency then would it not serve them better to just not say anything?

(I'm attempting to pull them in to a serious discussion with this one)

 

[Colpy]

I'll take this opportunity to bring up the question of Saddam gassing the Kurds. You are probably familiar with Stephen Pelletiere's CIA report on same. Here's a link for you and for others who can bear to learn something. Supposing there is anybody on this forum who cares to learn something that flies in the face of US propaganda.

:: www.uruknet.info :: informazione dal medio oriente :: information from middle east :: [vs-1]

In my opinion there is little doubt that Pelletier was one of, if not 'the' person to know the truth. That leads to the question of whether or not Pelletiere was lying. What do you believe? Was Pelletiere lying and if he was then what was the incentive to lie and blame the gassing of the Kurds on Iran? I would surely grant that the CIA has lied and been caught in it's lies on many occasions but the evidence presented on this case seems to point to a very comprehensive examination of the evidence presented by Pelletiere.

Before you answer I don't mind telling you that I am of the opinion that he was telling the truth and he spilled the beans at a bad time for the US. Of course you understand that this was one of the main justifications the US used for their war.

Colpy says: Machjo, note the above as we two at least take each othere seriously and it appears that we both take international law seriously. Even though it is true that the US does not subscribe to international law for it's own and won't recognize the court in the Hague. Notice that what the member in question says and accept that that is indeed the opinion of the US and many, many of it's people.

Is there any sense in appealing to these kind of people's sense of human decency and a sense of humanitarian justice ever being served?

Why don't they just say, I don't care and walk away from the discussion? Not just this member but others too who attempt to spam this thread with mockery and a bag of popcorn for a joke. If they have no decency then would it not serve them better to just not say anything?

(I'm attempting to pull them in to a serious discussion with this one)

Your position on the genocide of the Kurds is disingenuous.
Genocide in Kurdistan

You will notice that this individual has done an academic study, well before the propaganda war leading up to the invasion,(copyright 2000), and that he footnotes and cites numerous sources....it is not something he pulled out of his butt.

I am sure I can find some place on the net where someone claims Martians flew their Flying Saucers into the WTC on 9-11........that does not make it so. And it is increasingly you are so blinded by irrational loathing of the west that your "opinion" is of no value whatsoever, as it has absolutely no basis in fact.

International Law is a joke for two simple reasons:

1. Every nation will act first in its own best interest, international considerations be damned.

2. The nations that make up the world are not responsible actors. Only about a quarter of them are truly free and democratic, about another quarter are partially so, and the remaining 50% are despotic in nature. For any nation to seriously concede any part of its sovereignty to any body wielding power on the majority vote of an organization dominated by despots is insanity.

Thus International Law is a joke.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Yes, and I love you too yukonjack, even though it's you who is the hateful pig.....

Supposing there is anybody on this forum who cares to learn something.....
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=1454

Is there any sense in appealing to these kind of people's sense of human decency and a sense of humanitarian justice ever being served?

Why don't they just say, I don't care and walk away from the discussion? Not just this member but others too who attempt to spam this thread with mockery and a bag of popcorn for a joke. If they have no decency then would it not serve them better to just not say anything?

(I'm attempting to pull them in to a serious discussion with this one)

You know....you have to be the absolute most condesending Member
to have entered this Forum in the last two years.

Yes, you are a Huge Troll. You seem very familiar, almost like:

....with a side of "clutch." You know, I tried, & we're tired of your reporting
others for doing back to you what you've already done to them. You're
not contributing anything but poison to the Forum, as I'm assuming that
to be your intention. Fell free to take your vitriol to a different sandbox.

 

[Machjo]

Wrong,....it is called self-defense

Directly from the Charter of the United Nations:

You're right. Iraq had every right to defend itself.

Your position on the genocide of the Kurds is disingenuous.
Genocide in Kurdistan

You will notice that this individual has done an academic study, well before the propaganda war leading up to the invasion,(copyright 2000), and that he footnotes and cites numerous sources....it is not something he pulled out of his butt.

Agreed. Saddam truly was guilty of crimes against humanity.

I am sure I can find some place on the net where someone claims Martians flew their Flying Saucers into the WTC on 9-11........that does not make it so. And it is increasingly you are so blinded by irrational loathing of the west that your "opinion" is of no value whatsoever, as it has absolutely no basis in fact.

I wouldn't go that far. Even a complete fool is right sometimes, and it would be foolish to reject anything owing to the source. It ought to be accepted or rejected based on fact. Adolf Hitler once said that the children of Germany must be cared for since they are Germany's future. Would you disagree with him just because of who he was?

International Law is a joke for two simple reasons:

1. Every nation will act first in its own best interest, international considerations be damned.

That's a pretty pessimistic and depressing view of the world. Do you not believe that a person can sometimes choose to act in accordance to his conscience even to his own detriment? If so, and governments are made up of individuals, then how can we say that your statement applies all the time no exceptions aside? So, are you saying Canada falls into that category too, that it is driven exclusively by possible material benefit? If so, then how can you trust the government to not look out for its own interests exclusively to our own detriment?

2. The nations that make up the world are not responsible actors. Only about a quarter of them are truly free and democratic, about another quarter are partially so, and the remaining 50% are despotic in nature. For any nation to seriously concede any part of its sovereignty to any body wielding power on the majority vote of an organization dominated by despots is insanity.

Many voters aren't responsible actors either. Many Canadians might be emotionally or psychologically abused in their families, so we must conclude that they don't live in particularly free and democratic families either, and since there are no physical scars, legal authorities can't always prove it if they're too afraid to speak out. Others are intimidated by the threat of hell-fire in their church to vote this way or that. Yet the heads of those families can still vote, and the intimidated might vote on behalf of their oppressors of sorts. So, not all voters in Canada are particularly 'democratic' either. So for any person to concede any respect for the laws of Canada must be insanity too. So, are you advocating that we do what we think is right, the law be damned? If so, you're advocating for an end to government and national anarchy.

Thus International Law is a joke.

By the same token, we could argue that national law is a joke too, no?

At the end of the day, the question is do we respect the rule of law or do we not.

And by your standards, why attack Iraq but not Iran, North Korea, etc. Clearly picking on one but not the other shows our biased standards to, no? But then I suppose it boils down to your first premise, that we're just acting out of national interest only and not any higher purpose?

Also, if Bush didn't care for international, law, why did he go to the UN in the first place. Was he not legitimizing it by doing so? Or was her perhaps playing both sides of the fence by trying to get approval from an organization the legitimacy of which he rejects? If so, then that was pure hypocrisy.