Blue Crab Boulevard

Obama: Genocide Is Okay

Those of us who have been opposing a withdrawal from Iraq have been demanding that politicians agitating for it face up to what the result will be. We have seen all the dancing around the issue with nary a word on what a withdrawal would mean. Today we got that answer from one candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination: Genocide is hokey dokey.

SUNAPEE, N.H. - Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.

"Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven't done," Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.

"We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven't done. Those of us who care about Darfur don't think it would be a good idea," he said.

Obama, a first-term senator from Illinois, said it's likely there would be increased bloodshed if U.S. forces left Iraq.

"Nobody is proposing we leave precipitously. There are still going to be U.S. forces in the region that could intercede, with an international force, on an emergency basis," Obama said between stops on the first of two days scheduled on the New Hampshire campaign trail. "There's no doubt there are risks of increased bloodshed in Iraq without a continuing U.S. presence there."

What "international force"? Would that be the UN sponsored sex slave operations? I would never, in all my life, have believed that an American politician would seriously argue that genocide was perfectly acceptable. And that we should do nothing whatsoever to stop it. If you buy the anti-war premise that we should never have invaded - I do not - then you still have an obligation, as a nation, to not leave things worse than you found them. This is the old "you break it, you bought it" theory. But to say that we should allow a genocide - or that stopping one is not a reason to be there, is, quite frankly, sickening.

I'll give at least some credit here to Bill Clinton. He at least understood that we could not stand idly by while genocide went on in Kosovo. What Obama is proposing is the diametric opposite of what America has stood for. This is sick. And sickening.

War, World news | Gaius July 19, 2007

By rlpete2, July 19, 2007 @ 10:22 pm

“Obama: Genocide Is Okay” ….???

Where does he say that? He points to the genocide in the Congo and in Darfur, and says that is wrong, as well. Don’t you consider it genocide if it happens to Africans? You only care about Muslims?

Obama is pointing out that there is genocide in so many places that we would need to have a military big enough to occupy and control several countries to deal with all of them. Even if we reinstituted the draft to get the personnel, the cost would drain the nation’s economy.

“You break it, you bought it” is similar to what colin Powell warned Dubya before the invasion. Powell used the context of a pottery barn, which may have given the Pres the idea that he/we could “own” Iraq. But the anology is innapppropriate: Iraq was not for sale. It belonged, and still belongs to the Iraqi people.

Operation Iraqi Freedom was poorly planned from the start. It would have needed at least three times as strong a force to maintain order. Rumsfield’s “corporate mentality” (keep labor costs down, depending on technology) and the disolution of the govenment and military prcipitated chaos. Apparently the plan was orchestrated by the mysterious Rosie Scenario. Iraq is broken, we want to fix it. But it’s time to face the fact that we simply haven’t a clue what to do.

It should not be surprising that the candidate who said in 2000 that America should not engage in nation-building would not be very good at nation-building. Expecially when there are no senior officials in the Administration who know the language and culture of the region. Giving the job to cronies and political supporters is like having your gardener do your open heart surgery. Not a good idea.

What strikes me as ironic, and moronic, is that Bush opted to take down a very strong (though brutal) executive in order to “install democracy in a foreign country, but, with Cheney’s urging, has endevoured to make the Executive branch of our own democracy a far superior, rather than equal branch.

I read your blog, even though I disagree with most of your ideology, because it is intelligently written. (I also want to keep abreast of the latest developements in the Animal Uprising.) But to call Obama’s statements an endorsement of genocide has to be the cheapest of cheap shots, because you could not have missed his concern for African genocide.

He really scares you, apparently.
By Gaius, July 19, 2007 @ 10:42 pm

No he doesn’t. He appalls me. There is a moral obligation that you do not appear to see. It is not Bush’s war - it is America’s war. Reid voted for it. It is, whether you understand this, the war we have. I does not matter how we got here - it is the war we have. And we can not walk away and leave a genocide. There is no equivalence to the situation in Africa. None.
By syn, July 20, 2007 @ 3:08 am

BDS has now entered the level of genocidal insanity. Do Bushhaters really ever hear the words they speak?
By IanY77, July 20, 2007 @ 6:59 am

BDS has now entered the level of genocidal insanity. Do Bushhaters really ever hear the words they speak?

I do love that whole BDS thing. It’s so cute. It almost makes it seem like you put some thought into it. Does it ever occur to your feeble little mind that Bush has earned the hatred we have for him?

As for you Gaius, RLPETE2 was right on, Obama was simply saying that since this country has not intervened in the African genocides, it’s hard to understand why GWB is so worked up about Iraqi genocide.

It most certainly matters how we got here. We have to know who to trust, who was right, and who was wrong. We got here because of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. Rummy may be gone but Bush and Cheney remain. You may desperately want to forget how we got here, since it was your heroes who are responsible, but we, and more importantly, history will remember. The next time a Republican wants to lead this country to war under any circumstances other than pure self defence, the collective response of the country will be something along the lines of “what’s that little boy? You say you saw a wolf?! Are you sure this time?”

Finally, this war was dreamt up, planned, and executed by Republicans. The CPA was staffed by Repub hacks and cronies. Talented and competent individuals were passed over because of insufficient loyalty. Read “Imperial Life in the Emerald City”. This may or may not be Bush’s war, but it is most certainly the Republicans war (and who leads the Republican party? Must be that damn BDS kicking in again). You own it. Accept responsibility.
By syn, July 20, 2007 @ 8:00 am

lany77

Newsflash dude, GWB has condemed the genocide in Darfur however, the United Nations continues to ignore the situation.

You cannot be serious when you say that Republicans cooked up this war after Bill Clinton 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act (which I doubt you’ve even bothered to read)

That said, why would a Republican president under pressure from anti-American anti-war groups pull out in 1990 from the Gulf after ending Saddam’s invasion into Kuwait only to go back into Iraq a decade later?

Can’t say ‘for the oil’ since we haven’t taken any oil. Can’t say Repugs made up Saddam since Bill Clinton signed the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act. How do you deal with all the Democrats in Congress who voted to remove Saddam’s genocidal dictatorship which had ties to Islamic Jihadists(you do remember where one of the 1993 WTC bombers fled to after their initial attack.)

History will tell the story of just how deranged with hatred you are of Bush. That, and just how stupid are you.
By IanY77, July 20, 2007 @ 8:43 am

Newsflash dude, GWB has condemed the genocide in Darfur however, the United Nations continues to ignore the situation.

I condemn you Syn! Hah, take that! I bet you just recoiled in terror, didn’t you? Let’s face it, there’s nothing like a strongly worded condemnation when you need to get something done.

You cannot be serious when you say that Republicans cooked up this war after Bill Clinton 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act (which I doubt youâ€™ve even bothered to read)

Yes I did read it (after having the same discussion with another person of your political bent). The link is here: http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm

Now go read that link and I’ll wait here………And you’re back. What did you learn? Did you see anywhere in that ILA that it said to massively invade Iraq with insufficient troops and planning for the aftermath? If you did, well, mommy and daddy should have held you back a year.

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.

Authorizes the President, after notifying specified congressional committees, to provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations: (1) grant assistance for radio and television broadcasting to Iraq; (2) Department of Defense (DOD) defense articles and services and military education and training (IMET); and (3) humanitarian assistance, with emphasis on addressing the needs of individuals who have fled from areas under the control of the Hussein regime. Prohibits assistance to any group or organization that is engaged in military cooperation with the Hussein regime. Authorizes appropriations.

Directs the President to designate: (1) one or more Iraqi democratic opposition organizations that meet specified criteria as eligible to receive assistance under this Act; and (2) additional such organizations which satisfy the President’s criteria.

Urges the President to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law.

Expresses the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq’s transition to democracy by providing humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people and democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, including convening Iraq’s foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to the foreign debt incurred by the Hussein regime.

Do you see “invasion” anywhere in there? I don’t, but I don’t have your magic ConservoVision(tm) which let’s me see things that aren’t there.

That said, why would a Republican president under pressure from anti-American anti-war groups pull out in 1990 from the Gulf after ending Saddamâ€™s invasion into Kuwait only to go back into Iraq a decade later?

Wow, so much stupid to wade through, so little time: 1. Different administrations with different personnel with different policy goals and worldviews might do things differently than their predecessors. 2. At the time, Dick Cheney and Bush Senior both recognized the dangers of occupying Iraq, while GWB didn’t (he appeals to a higher father, remember?) 3. Anti war doesn’t mean anti-American, you jackhole. I agree some people hate all wars, all the time. I’m not one of them. I just hate the unjustified ones. If you want to debate me, get out of your Ann Coulter fantasyland. I am not a doctrinaire liberal.

Canâ€™t say â€˜for the oilâ€™ since we havenâ€™t taken any oil. Canâ€™t say Repugs made up Saddam since Bill Clinton signed the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act. How do you deal with all the Democrats in Congress who voted to remove Saddamâ€™s genocidal dictatorship which had ties to Islamic Jihadists(you do remember where one of the 1993 WTC bombers fled to after their initial attack.)

Off topic and irrelevant to the tread. But I’ll grant you the attention you do not merit. I used to think it was for the oil, until the admin helped Iraq get into OPEC. If the war was for cheap oil, why put Iraq into a price fixing cartel? I honestly don’t know the administrations true motives for the war. So many theories have been floated that one has to be the right one (kinda like the show “Lost”).

History will tell the story of just how deranged with hatred you are of Bush. That, and just how stupid are you.

Grammar like that, and you have the nerve to call me stupid? Like I said, Bush earned my hatred. But hey, the good news is, he doesn’t care you you or I think. Were you upset about the immigration bill? Well, you’re unamerican (but don’t take my word for it, just ask Dubya).
By IanY77, July 20, 2007 @ 8:47 am

he doesnâ€™t care you you or I think.

he doesn’t care WHAT you or I think.

/just preempting the the grammar nazis.
By syn, July 20, 2007 @ 9:34 am

no mention as to why Clinton enacted the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act; if anything you could justifably state that GWB is guilty of plagerizing Bill Clinton’s 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act.

‘let’s face it there nothing like a strongly worded condemnation to get something done’

After 17 United Nations resolutions against Saddam made over a decade(with a Democrat president in office and who enacted the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act) you have the audacity to say that with such a pious attitude.

Like I said, you are deranged with hate and it has made you delusional.

Further, I marched along side Simon Deng on behalf of demanding to the United Nations do something about Darfur. Where the hell where you?
By syn, July 20, 2007 @ 9:37 am

lany77

Whatever Media Matters is paying you to troll your ignorance is way too much for what you are able to produce.
By IanY77, July 20, 2007 @ 11:44 am

*sigh* Jesus, you cons never get it right. I do the bidding of The Great Orange Satan, my dark and temperamental Lord Kos. Media Matters is simply the instrument by which we….perhaps I have said too much.

no mention as to why Clinton enacted the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act; if anything you could justifably state that GWB is guilty of plagerizing Bill Clintonâ€™s 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act.

No, no, no, no. Je-SUS can you read?! Where do you see “massive invasion” in the ILA? I see it only once, in reference to the invasion of Kuwait. There were multiple ways to deal with Saddam, and little Georgie just happened to pick the worst.

After 17 United Nations resolutions against Saddam made over a decade(with a Democrat president in office and who enacted the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act) you have the audacity to say that with such a pious attitude.

Sarcasm detector is a little out of sync today, huh? You used the Clinton’s ILA and UN resolutions as justification of invading Iraq (I didn’t know you cons were such fans of Clinton and the UN), and I was simply pointing out how the ILA never mentioned overt military action.

And finally, even if you were right about my hatred for Bush (and let’s be clear here, you’re not), hating the other guy with a burning passion is just how things are done in modern America. I mean seriously, were you in a coma during the 90’s? You remember the right’s psychotic hatred for Bill Clinton? So if you have an issue with people hating the leader of the country, move somewhere where everyone is in agreement about how wonderful the leader is. North Korea seems more your style. As for Bush specifically, the man goes out of his way to attack us. If I were to hypothetically walk up to you in the street and slap you in the face repeatedly, are you irrational for hating me? No, you’re human, just as I am human for hating Bush. Deal with it.
By rlpete2, July 20, 2007 @ 2:09 pm

Gaius:

Democrats voted to give the President authority to invade, to use as diplomatic leverage, and with the expectation that any invasion would be wellplanned and provisioned. They trusted the judgement of the President, with a very few exceptions.

There were more people than Joe Wilson claiming flaws in the intelligence, and I’m certain all members of Congress were aware, so I’ll agree that it is America’s war, although Bush holds much greater responsibility.

Reluctantly, I will argue by ananlogy, although bitter experience has shown that conservatives often get confused. If you were to, accidentally or maliciciously, break my 1966 Mosrite electric guitar, we can agree that you have an obligation of repair, replacement on compensarion. However, you do NOT get to insist that you do the repair, especially if you have little knowledge of guitars & luthiery. And you certainly do not get to insist that it be reassembled as a banjo, because you like banjos.

America has an obligation for the repair of infrastructure. It would be more cost effective to set up an escrow account of, say, half a trillion dollars, to be paid into over ten years. The money would be doled out over fifteen years to a stable, lawful and antiterrorist government or governments of Iraq.

Perhaps the money would be enough incentive for them to get along with each other, and shoot al Quaidas members on sight.

So you only get upset about genocide when we have a hand in serring it off?