Genocide OK
Obama climbs on NYT bandwagon. Not our problem:
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.
Well, that’s not entirely the criteria. There are also concerns about Iran’s efforts dominate some of the world’s most strategically important real estate and, with al-Qaeda, to use it to finance and export terrorism. Contrary to the left’s poo-pooing of ethnic cleansing, however, genocide prompted by a hasty exit from a place where we are currently engaged is arguably a concern. More poo-pooing, with tactical/strategic ignorance, follows:
… 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.”
The greater risk is staying in Iraq, Obama said.
“It is my assessment that those risks are even greater if we continue to occupy Iraq and serve as a magnet for not only terrorist activity but also irresponsible behavior by Iraqi factions,” he said.
Surber: Obama’s no Lincoln
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 10:32 am on Friday, July 20, 2007
30 Responses to “Genocide OK”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
July 20th, 2007 at 11:29 am
It is my assessment that the senator is a lightweight.
July 20th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
They should fit Obama for a clown suit.
His Ivy League vocabulary and diction might be worth something in a courtroom or a boardroom for a short while but he is a nothing but cardboard cut out. In reality he would get eaten alive like Pelosi in Syria. Obama thinks his limited legal experience and golden oratory gifts will save the planet. Diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy—Obama is a James Baker for the Left. He would sell out our military the very people they are fighting to save just to cut a deal with barbarians and “stop the fighting”—temporarily.
Obama tries to sound knowledgeable about global conflicts and throws out “the Congo” a total non-sequitar to the struggle we are in but sure to resonate with the left and strategically challenged.
He goes on to imply this war is illegitimate and he would call on the UN to solve world problems…
“When you have civil conflict like this, military efforts and protective forces can play an important role, especially if they’re under an international mandate as opposed to simply a U.S. mandate. But you can’t solve the underlying problem at the end of a barrel of a gun,” he said. “There’s got to be a deliberate and constant diplomatic effort to get the various factions to recognize that they are better off arriving at a peaceful resolution of their conflicts.”
From this you can see he thinks he can talk to al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and Iran to “solve the underlying problem”. He is deluding a whole segment of the voting population to believe that negotiations with these groups are still worthwhile. Obama obviously hasn’t read a lick of their founding father’s ideology. Qutb and Khomeini didn’t want to negotiate with us and to imply otherwise is an outright lie.
Obama totally denies the value of our military and its current operations. He thinks we could leave now and declare “victory”. He would pull a Dunkirk or Vietnam style withdrawal spitting on our military’s sacrifice in Iraq. “We have not lost a military battle in Iraq. So when people say if we leave, we will lose, they’re asking the wrong question,” he said. “We cannot achieve a stable Iraq with a military. We could be fighting there for the next decade.”
Obama, like Hillary, is still selling the canard that Iraq is in a “Civil War” when 45% of those in detention in Iraq are Saudi and 15% are Syrian or Jordanian. 200 suicide belts are stopped at the border of Syria. We catch the intermediary of al Qaeda Iraq and AQ who admits the Islamic state of Iraq is a sham; foreigners run it. Does this change Sheik Obama’s tune? No, he calls it “irresponsible behavior” by Iraqi factions. The MSM and the Left’s candidates won’t let go of this. Here’s propaganda pitch:
“It is my assessment that those risks are even greater if we continue to occupy Iraq and serve as a magnet for not only terrorist activity but also irresponsible behavior by Iraqi factions,” he said.
Time to vomit.
July 20th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Why leave just to come back? That is gross stupidity! Give up control of a situation so you need to retake it? If we don’t have total control now what the hell will we have when we leave?
Those ghouls on the left evidently have a bloodthirst that won’t be satiated until al-Qaeda assumes control of the area. Much in the same manner that the blood that ran in Indochina was their cause.
Those idiots want us to intervene in Darfur. Excuse me? Why the hell would I support saving one group while at the same time throwing another bunch of people to the wolves? What the hell is passing for sanity on the left?
July 20th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
A little genocide always “cleanses the soul”. The good senator understands this.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Not even the most bloodthirsty wingnut really believes al Qaeda will take over iIraq when we leave, Mike.
Quite the opposite…the only “genocide” that will take place when we leave will be that of al Qeada in Iraq.
July 20th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
More evidence that modern Democrats have abandoned all principles to BDS.
July 20th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
SPQR?
The official signature of the Imperial Roman government?
Favorite saying of Benito Musolini?
Poor little pudknocker…not Empire for you.
Accept it.
July 20th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Not even the most bloodthirsty wingnut really believes al Qaeda will take over iIraq when we leave, Mike.
Quite the opposite…the only “genocide” that will take place when we leave will be that of al Qeada in Iraq.
Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury. I ask…please look at the two above “sentences” and outside of the name Mike, what in the fuck is, one, the difference between them and two, are these the ravings of a cognitive, rational being?
July 20th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Not even the most bloodthirsty wingnut really believes al Qaeda will take over iIraq when we leave, Mike.
Quite the opposite…the only “genocide” that will take place when we leave will be that of al Qeada in Iraq.
Ahhhh yes, forgot the word filter…..again.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. I ask, one, what in the f-u-c-k is the difference between the above two “sentences, except for the name, Mike? Two, are these the words of a cognitive, rational being?
Let me answer…NO!
July 20th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Ohhhh my…I should have had NONE and NO!
July 20th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
…Obama, a first-term senator from Illinois…
Pretty much, this is Obama in a nutshell.
Why leave just to come back? That is gross stupidity! Give up control of a situation so you need to retake it? If we don’t have total control now what the hell will we have when we leave?
Mike, you’re assuming that any Dhimmicrat is sincere when promising to come back if there’s a problem. They won’t send US troops back to Iraq after running away in the first place, and the jihadi brothers of THE ALPHTARD™ know this full and well. In fact, they’re counting on it.
July 20th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Yeah, Jeff,
I actually agree with you there. Once we pull out of Iraq, President Hillary will probably withdraw all our troops from the Middle East, too.
But, the invasion of Iraq, start to “Mission Accomplished” “only” cost 137 American lives and about $30 billion.
If you losers hadn’t stuck it out to the bitter end, we could have invaded Iraq 20 times over and still been well ahead of where we are now.
Something to remember in 30-40 years when your kind is allowed to take power again.
July 20th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
If this is true, why were bothering with Saddam for the two terms that Clinton was president? If I remember correctly the two reasons cited by the former president were national security and humanitarian concerns for the Iraqi people. So, after applauding Clinton for passing the Iraqi Liberation Act and spending billions in maintaining the no fly zones and a base in SA for the purpose of keeping an eye on Saddam, not to mention the food for oil scam etc….we hear that there is no reason for us to concern ourselves with Iraq.
Little late now.
And alphie, one of our largest naval bases is in Dubai, which is in the ME, and so far as I know Queen Hillary is not talking about abandoning the Gulf.
And if the Iraqis are capable of taking out AlQaida all by themselves, I think they could do that even with us there.
But I forget, you are dedicated to the notion of surrender and defeat and if they can throw in a few million dead Arabs, that is just icing on the cake for a little ghoul like you.
July 20th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Starting to get a bit shrill, jihad boy?
One blow after another. Wilson all but called a liar by the federal courts. NYT reading the wind and becoming a bit more cautious. Iran increasingly isolated. Dems plan a sleepover and come out looking like clown college dropouts. Little Joey Biden losing it in a video conference. Obama realizing that the moonbat vote isn’t adding any numbers to a total much less than it seemed and publicly accepting the genocide option in Iraq to pry a few away from Edwards.
And congress careens towards half Bush’s approval rating.
Narrative starting to fray jihad boy?
July 20th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
And of course there is also the fact that Hillary Clinton has called for more troops in Afghanistan and has stated the US will keep some kind of presence in Iraq, she is just too much of a politician to say how many troops that might be.
BTW, if the US really did shut down all its bases and pulled back to the good ol US of A, the world economy would collapse because the only real stabilizing influence would be gone. On land and sea, there would be chaos. And anyone who is not completely stupid, knows that.
So we can not expect alphie to grasp it.
July 20th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
What wingnut thread would be complete without one of you hoisting the tattered and stained “Mission Accomplished” banner, eh, Oldman?
Salute!
July 20th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
You know something alphie, I am not a wingnut, for years I was a Democrat and then a bunch of people like you ran me out of my party.
The sad thing is you guys never have solutions to anything. You just run away. You do not fix things, you do not make life better for people, you do not serve any purpose. You are anti war….anti America…., anti freedom,….. anti victory,….. anti belief in anything other than yourself and your needs. You are like those people who constantly bitch about the government at the same time they make more and more demands of it.
Government is evil, I think it should pay my medical bills. Government is corrupt, I think it should guarantee my a minimum income every month. Government is out to get us and can not be trusted, I think it should raise our taxes. Government only cares about the rich, I think it is irrelevant how many Iraqis die. etc.
July 20th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
“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.
Well Barracks…We have only been in business for some 220 years, give or take, and Africa has been slaughtering millions and millions and millions, before those 220 give or take years.
Lord knows we have tried…even tried saving Africans from, Islamists…but, to NO AVAIL.
OH! Since an idiot here thinks this is fine, maybe we should just start here.
July 20th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Of course Barracks, kinda didn’t help when Monica’s boyfriend was bombing aspirin factories…Sudan I believe…Africa, right?
July 20th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Oh wait…Obomba, I forgot tossin’ cruise missiles up camel asses in Afghanistan. Boy that sure got rid of the Talibanners, huh?
July 20th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
‘What wingnut thread would be complete without one of you hoisting the tattered and stained “Mission Accomplished” banner, eh, Oldman?’
They’re insurgents, not AlQ. No, wait, it’s a peasant uprising. No, wait, there won’t be any genocide, cause Sadr will take control of the country. No, wait, he ran to Iran - ran, ran, ran, ran to Iran - it’ll be the Sunni’s we armed, ya, that’s it. No, wait, Anbar is becoming more peaceful by the day, Um, Ah, Um, Ah…they’ll be genocide, but it’ll be ALQ, No, wait, there’s no ALQ, they’re insurgents. No, wait, they’re peasant warriors. Um, AH, Um, Ah, no, they are ALQ and wil be the victim of genocide, but the genocide will be OUR fault because it’s isn’t our country and we shouldn’t have gone in…no, wait, it isn’t ALQs country either. But it’ll be genocide anyway, ya, that’s it. No, wait, how can it be an Iraqi genocide against ALQ if ALQ are foreign fighters. Um, Ah, Um, Ah, no, wait….I know… remember that sign on the aircraft carrier….
How could an increasingly desperate marching moron seem even shriller as the narrative slips away? Why, just bring up the moonbat eye candy of 3 years ago, eh, jihad boy?
Time to hurry. Time to scurry. Time to reinvent yourself, jihad boy.
Dropping and dropping, on it’s way to half Bush’s approval rating. A democrat congress with half the approval rating of a lame duck republican president.
July 20th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Obomba…Sudan, was that not the same country that wanted Monica’s favorite cigar boy, that gave him notice of a fella’ by the name of Osama, they wanted to get rid of?
July 20th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Don’t tell me you ‘re counting on a wingnut political surge to sweep your guys back into Congress, oldman?
You guys are even more desperate than I thought.
Congressional approval is low because they haven’t ended your Iraq fiasco yet, not because they don’t support it.
Yow!
July 20th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
‘Don’t tell me you ‘re counting on a wingnut political surge to sweep your guys back into Congress, oldman?’
Well, It ain’t going to happen because this congress is solid because the approval rating for this congress is so…no, wait, waiiiit, jeez, wait,,,,Um, Ah, Um, Ah, I know:
‘Congressional approval is low because they haven’t ended your Iraq fiasco yet, not because they don’t support it.’
Ya, that’s it. Because every time they try to end the NEOCON Iraq fiasco their supporters show their approval by…well, they, you know…the approval rating, no, wait…the low approval rating is BECAUSE they try to end…no wait…it’s because they haven’t been ABLE to end it even though they have all the support…no, wait, that isn’t it….
Yah, well, remember that aircraft carrier….so there. Hah.
July 20th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Proving, without any possibility of argument, that Obama is not up to the task of Executive office.
July 20th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
Dont kid yourself, Oldman.
Congress can end the Iraq war on October 1st by simply not passing the FY2008 Defense bill.
They just have to outlast all the war profiteers hiding behind the troops.
I think they may surprise you.
July 20th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Yes, yes, A-Tard, the Democratic Congress only has one failure keeping them at 14%. Is that it?
The one failure being their inability to stop the war, without appearing to do so. They could just cut the funding but then they’d be labeled as the non-troop supporting, defeatists for political gain that they are. But they are too cowardly for that.
They misread their “mandate for change” from the public. Yes, the public wanted change. Bush changed tactics and strategy in January but Dem Cong refused to admit it honestly. Steny Hoyer came out of the State of the Union and said “I heard nothing new”. What a duplicitous sack of shit. The MSM went along sold the same narrative as congress and the public bought it.
Well now the public is going to see Steny was and is a lying SOB.
And the rest of the Dem Cong is incompetent as they are dishonest. That is why their numbers are so low. Here’s a funny example.
Mitch McConnell regularly makes them look like the rank amateurs they are. Somehow the democrats didn’t read an amendment that Mitch proposed. It would keep the Gitmo detainees at Gitmo and never allow them on US soil. Numerous democrats want to shut down Gitmo and even bring the detainees here—Great Idea. Unbelievably, they voted Mitch’s amendment through 97-3 before they knew what happened. Ted Kennedy exploded when he realized that the vote had been recorded. Who’s running this congress Ted?
Later the Dem Cong proposed the Salazar amendment that would prevent Bush from pardoning Libby. Mitch saw this coming and had an available clerk read all Clinton’s questionable pardons into record. This thoroughly embarrassed the Dem Cong in front of C-SPAN and delayed voting. The dem cong had to pull the Salazar amendment off the floor due to time considerations. Ted Kennedy went ballistic again, this time at McConnell.
“The night Mitch McConnell Became the leader of the Republican Party”
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/32a158d3-5080-4daa-a910-43afa8091ee5
Mitch McConnell will be republican leader for long time to come and Dem Cong has no equal. “Mitch Slapping” is in session for the foreseeable future.
July 21st, 2007 at 1:48 am
‘Congress can end the Iraq war on October 1st by simply not passing the FY2008 Defense bill.’
Yah, that’s the ticket. That’s how we’ll do it. We’ll get those approval ratings skyhigh. We’ll refuse to fund the military at all!!! That’ll show the NEOCONS how much we support the troops and are the right party to be in charge of the US and…no, wait, that’s not it. No, waiiit, just wait a minute. That’s not what I meant. Um, Ah, jeez, give me a minute willya….
Those NEOCONS. Boy. Get a load of that aircraft carrier…..
July 21st, 2007 at 7:22 am
I suppose that since the New Amsterdam Times* said that genocide is okay after all, Obama felt free to make that depraved, cynical, immoral statement.
Since the NYTs decided to parade their erudition by insisting on calling Iraq “Mesopotamia,” I figure they ought to go all the way. Perhaps they think that by taking us back several thousand years into history we’ll be prepared when we all become the slaves of the primitives trying to take over the world.
July 21st, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Saltydog
To call it Sumer was not as catchy as Mesopotamia. Test marketing revealed potential confusion with the season. Oh, Gilgamesh! Rise and strike down the NYT for this grevious wrong.
Reid and Pelosi should find nice cushy positions as Dhimmi supervisors when the primitives take their rightful place as our overlords. So, it’s not all bad.
It will be “planet of the apes” for the rest of us. Being hunted down like vermin by riders on horseback with nets. Just like Darfur but on a global scale. Yippeee!
Obama!
Obama!
Obama!