Obama: I would go anywhere to stop genocide! Well, except for Iraq.
Posted on October 8, 2008
Last night, Obama was asked about using the United States military for humanitarian issues, like genocide. Obama was quick to give a hawkish answer, and to use WWII as an example. Apparently, we joined the fight against Nazi Germany solely to stop the Holocaust.
My very first thought was, “How did this guy go to Harvard without even an elementary understanding of the largest war this country has ever fought?”
I’m going to let Jay Tea give you a little history lesson before we move forward:
First up, the United States did NOT enter World War II because of the Holocaust. Knowledge of what Nazi Germany was doing to the Jews was very limited, and even those who had access to such information simply couldn’t bring themselves to believe it to be true. The United States entered the war because Japan attacked us; we declared war on Germany because they declared war on us first.
Next, the US did very little to directly stop or even slow down the Holocaust as it ramped up. This was because there was very little we could do. Not only did we not have anywhere near the technology we have now, but we were being opposed by one of the mightiest military forces in the world. Our strategic goal was to stop German aggression, and the best way we could think of to do just that was to utterly destroy the German nation. That would have the effect of ending the Holocaust, but that was a mere fortunate happenstance. Nobody went to war to save the Jews and the Gypsies and the others being exterminated by the Nazis; it was to stop the Nazis from conquering Europe and threatening the rest of the world.
While you’re over there, read his argument for why going into Darfur is not just an exercise in futility, but also an exercise in stupidity.
Anyway… back to Obama’s insipid statement. He said that we have a “moral responsibility” to stop genocide and the murder of innocents. To not exercise that responsibility would diminish us, he said.
Yet somehow, Obama’s beacon of moral responsibility was missing when it came to overthrowing a tyrant who murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Iraq. Hmm. He said that stopping genocide wasn’t a good enough reason to stay in Iraq, remember?
Though most of the debate dealt with domestic issues, it was a foreign-policy question that sent me flying to my files. Moderator Tom Brokaw asked the candidates what their “doctrine” would be “in situations where there’s a humanitarian crisis, but it does not affect our national security,” such as “the Congo, where 4.5 million people have died since 1998,” or Rwanda or Somalia.
In such cases, answered Obama, “we have moral issues at stake.” Of course the United States must act to stop genocide, he said. “When genocide is happening, when ethnic cleansing is happening . . . and we stand idly by, that diminishes us.”
But that wasn’t how Obama sounded last year, when he was competing for the Democratic nomination and was unbending in his demand for an American retreat from Iraq. Back then, he dismissed fears that a US withdrawal would unleash a massive Iraqi bloodbath. “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 US forces there,” the AP reported on July 20, 2007 (my italics).
What kind of candidate is it whose moral response to genocide – genocide – can reverse itself 180 degrees in a matter of months? Is that the kind of candidate who ought to be the leader of the free world?
No, Jeff, that’s not the kind of candidate who ought to be leader of the free world.
Amy Holmes thinks Obama just doesn’t know when he would use military force.
He said that we have a moral responsibility to use force to save innocents. How does that apply to Iraq? Saddam Hussein was a mass murderer and gassed his own people. Obama opposed military intervention. Obama also opposed the surge and advocated withdrawal despite the warnings that it would lead to a bloodbath and possible genocide. And now that the surge is helping to quell violence and save lives, Obama says that he would still oppose that action. What does that mean? What about our moral responsibility to the Iraqis? Obama says he’s against the Holocaust. Well, for goodness sakes, who isn’t? The question is: When would a President Obama order military action? Based on what criteria? Do we know? Does he know?
Is it possible that Obama’s just flexing his moral relativism muscles? It sure sounds like it to me.
Look, we can’t be invading every single country that murders its people. I’ll be honest, I wish we could. I’m not heartless. What’s happening in the Congo and in Darfur is horrible, and it would be great if we could make it stop. But we can’t be everywhere at once. And there are real threats to our national security, and while it’s very nice to want to stop genocide in Darfur, our safety comes first. And unfortunately, that’s just the way it has to be. And when it comes to Obama, which is it? Is genocide reprehensible and something that Americans have a moral duty to stop? Or does that only apply to liberal pet causes like Darfur, and not so much to ones that liberals don’t like, like Iraq?
I’d imagine that in the real world, with Obama as President, we wouldn’t see much military action. Our troops would come home and funding for the military would be slashed, and the military will likely be downsized. We wouldn’t be the world’s largest superpower anymore. Why would we need to be? For liberals like Obama, there’s nothing that is worth fighting for. He can talk the hawkish talk, but when has he ever shown that he’s willing to walk the hawkish walk?
Hat Tip: Hot Air
Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog.
» Filed Under Debate, Democrats, Elections, Foreign Policy, History, Iraq, Middle East, Moral Relativism, National Security, News, Obama/Biden, Stupidity, War On Terror, military, terrorism
Trackback URL
Comments
6 Responses to “Obama: I would go anywhere to stop genocide! Well, except for Iraq.”
Leave a Reply
Good thoughts. The O’bummer’s public statements and his real agenda are quite different. He is a “lick your finger and stick it up to find out which way the wind is blowing now” guy who says whatever he thinks will help him win at the moment. The mask will come off later and the Marxist work will start in earnest. Would you lend you car or credit card to this clown?
Rocketman
If this clown gets into the whitehouse, you will have neither car nor credit card to lend.
!
We’ve seen it again and again with liberal politicians who make decisions only out of political conveniance: the rules that apply to the rest of the world are very different for Iraq.
The chameleon strikes again.
You think Jimmy Carter was bad wait until this Marxist Trick Baby steals the election with felons & dead people making their way to the polls. (ò¿ó)
Barack Hussein Obama said he would never have gone to war in Iraq. Then, in the 2nd Presidential Debate, Obama said the USA should always use our military to prevent genocide. That is a huge contradiction because before the International Coalition deposed Saddam Hussein, Saddam was conducting two genocides in Iraq:
1) Genocide against the Kurds in the North, where Saddam was killing 2,000 Kurds a day, and
2) Genocide against the Shiite’s in the Southern marshes, where Saddam was draining the marshes, causing huge environmental damage, and using helicopters to machine gun the exposed villages.
(Fact Check: facts obtained from “The War Crimes of Saddam Hussein” By Tom Head, About.com)
We must remember that a free Iraq, convicted Saddam Hussein of the Genocide of 50,000 Iraquis. That is why he was found guilty of genocide in his trial and put to death.
Before the International Coalition invaded and deposed Saddam Hussein, the USA was in an continuous hot war with Saddam to stop his genocides. That is why the USA maintained two No-Fly Zones in Iraq, one in the North and one in the South. It was a hot war, because Saddam Hussein’s military was shooting Russian missles at our war planes every few days. If one of those missles ever killed a USA plane and pilot, then the big war would have been started before the United Nations issued its mandate to depose Saddam Hussein.
So Barack Hussein Obama lies about his own positions, statements, and beliefs, by changing them to fit whatever position that Obama thinks will give him a momentary advantage. No only that, but Obama really is dangerously ignorant and inexperienced.