During tonight's "town hall" debate in Nashville, Senator Barack Obama opined that the United States should intervene militarily --even when our interests are not at stake-- for humanitarian reasons, such as to end genocide and ethnic cleansing. He said we had a moral interest in stopping mass killing in places such as Darfur, Somalia, and the Congo.
What a liar.
The Saddam Hussein regime was responsible for the genocide of hundreds of thousands of Kurds and Shi'ites, and had used chemical and biological warfare against the Kurds.
Toppling the Saddam Hussein regime required boots on the groud for less than three weeks, and fewer than 200 Americans were killed in battle during one of history's most brilliant and effective campaigns.
And that stopped Saddam Hussein's genocide cold.
Moreover, Saddam Hussein had drained the Iraqi marshes, an act of ecological terrorism almost without parallel in history, whose intention was the genocide of the "marsh Arabs."
But that intended genocide was stopped cold by America's intervention, and the marshes are well on their way to complete restoration.
Yet Obama continues to trumpet his ill-conceived and wrong-headed opinion that the war to liberate Iraq from the genocidal tyranny of Saddam Hussein was a mistake.
What makes you think that he and his fellow defeatists in the Democrat Party would be any more supportive of American military action anywhere else?
What a lying hypocrite.
Vote accordingly.
What a liar.
The Saddam Hussein regime was responsible for the genocide of hundreds of thousands of Kurds and Shi'ites, and had used chemical and biological warfare against the Kurds.
Toppling the Saddam Hussein regime required boots on the groud for less than three weeks, and fewer than 200 Americans were killed in battle during one of history's most brilliant and effective campaigns.
And that stopped Saddam Hussein's genocide cold.
Moreover, Saddam Hussein had drained the Iraqi marshes, an act of ecological terrorism almost without parallel in history, whose intention was the genocide of the "marsh Arabs."
But that intended genocide was stopped cold by America's intervention, and the marshes are well on their way to complete restoration.
Yet Obama continues to trumpet his ill-conceived and wrong-headed opinion that the war to liberate Iraq from the genocidal tyranny of Saddam Hussein was a mistake.
What makes you think that he and his fellow defeatists in the Democrat Party would be any more supportive of American military action anywhere else?
What a lying hypocrite.
Vote accordingly.
UPDATE: Wednesday 10:30 AM.
Added from my response to a comment from a reader:
I should add that military intervention is always more attractive to the Democrat Party whenever American vital interests are NOT at stake.
If military intervention might actually do something to help our Country and the American people, it is always suspect in the eyes of defeatist Democrats.
But military action that will do nothing to advance American interests is automatically more attractive to them. If there is no chance that military action will actually help America, the Democrats actually like it better.
Since at heart, they are opposed to American interests. They have become anti-American globalists who see the United States as the problem rather than the solution.
UPDATE #2: TAB SCOOPS HOT AIR AND JEFF JACOBY:
PUNDITARIAN SCOOPED THEM BY A DAY. THEY WROTE ON THIS ISSUE HERE AND HERE.
REGULAR READERS KNOW THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. SPREAD THE WORD. BLOGROLL US.
This scumbag is so sick and perverse, I don't even know where to begin...
ReplyDeleteHe doesn't care about our country.
He doesn't care about our troops.
He doesn't care about fighting Islamo Fascism.
He is a perfidious coward...
How can you debate a liar. Every time you talk to him he's changed his views. When you debate a normal person who has actual positions on a subject you can actually debate the differences but Obama has no positions except what he thinks the audience wants to hear. He's not even fit to be on the same stage with McCain let alone be a candidate for President.
ReplyDeleteC. Benson
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHe's a liar and a hypocrite because he understands that the military doesn't have a time machine?
ReplyDeleteMcCain's dropping poll numbers are making you guys so desperate, you're barely coherent.
McCoy,
ReplyDeleteYou're missing the point.
You don't need a time machine to realize that Obama's (and Biden's) statements that they would support military intervention to end genocide are hypocritical, because in face, when the United States did intervene to depose a genocidal dictator, Obama opposed the mission from the start, and he would soon retreat from any military mission that actually involved money, casualties, and . . . military action. Obama is a fantasist . . . like Biden.
I agree! I only wish McCain would have said that in the debate last night. It would have been an excellent point for him to make!
ReplyDeleteI should add that military intervention is always more attractive to the Democrat Party whenever American vital interests are NOT at stake.
ReplyDeleteIf military intervention might actually do something to help our Country and the American people, it is always suspect in the eyes of defeatist Democrats.
But military action that will do nothing to advance American interests is automatically more attractive to them.
Since at heart, they are opposed to American interests. They have become anti-American globalists who see the United States as the problem rather than the solution.
I should add that military intervention is always more attractive to the Democrat Party whenever American vital interests are NOT at stake.
ReplyDeleteIf military intervention might actually do something to help our Country and the American people, it is always suspect in the eyes of defeatist Democrats.
But military action that will do nothing to advance American interests is automatically more attractive to them.
Since at heart, they are opposed to American interests. They have become anti-American globalists who see the United States as the problem rather than the solution.
Kim,
ReplyDeleteWe are honored that you are following our blog.
We are not ready to give up on America yet!
you scooped jeff jacoby of the bostson globe and ed morrisey of hot air!
ReplyDeletelinks split to fit
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2008/10/08/
obamas_180_on_genocide/
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/08/
obamas-180-on-genocide/
Punditarian, your "logic" (or rather, lack of it) isn't remotely tenable, as it would indict Reagan and Bush Sr. even more so than Obama, as neither of them attempted an invasion while the actual genocide was occurring! Reagan was busy supporting Saddam while Saddam was gassing the Kurds and blocked UN condemnations of Saddam's use of chemical weapons.
ReplyDeleteTo suggest that the invasion of Iraq was to "stop a genocide" or to equate the WMD-prompted invasion of Iraq with what Obama and others have proposed with respect to places like Darfur is precisely the kind of dishonesty that's killing American conservatism, and the current trend as labeling American progressives as "anti-American" is icing on that cake.
Newsflash: The neo-con/theocrat/conservative vision of America is NOT America. Opposition to the former does not even remotely come close to opposition to the latter. In fact, I would suggest that opposition to the former is actually pro-America.
McCoy,
ReplyDeleteThe United States never "supported" Saddam. Saddam was armed by Russia, China, and Western Europe, but fewer that 2% of Saddam's weapons were of US origin.
The simple fact is, that the removal of Saddam from power stopped his genocide of the Kurds, the Marsh Arabs, and the Shi'ites. Because you participate in the dishonest fantasies of the Left, that the the only possible purpose of the liberation of Iraq was to find Saddam's WMDs, does not make it so. Go back a re-read the Senate and UNSC resolutions. There were many reasons for taking down Saddam, one of which was ending his genocidal ethnic-cleansing.
It's true that Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton ran away from trouble in the Middle East. More backbone in Lebanon and Somalia might have forestalled some of the problems we have to deal with now, but the failures of these past Presidents don't excuse Obama's lying hypocrisy. Indeed, with those past experiences, he should certainly know better now.
How long would a defeatist liar like Obama sustain a military intervention in Darfur, after it got hot and American soldiers started getting killed by essentially the same gang of jihadist thugs we are fighting in Iraq & Afghanistan?
Besides which, during the primaries, Obama went on the record to say that even post-withdrawal genocide in Iraq would not be reason enough for him to continue America's military intervention there.
So if genocide was acceptable to Obama during the primaries, why isn't it acceptable to him now?
Does he hate Arabs? Does he hate Muslims?
No, I think he is just a liar and a hypocrite who poses as a marxist-leninist radical in order to conceal that he just another Chicago party hack.
mccoy, why choose to be a dupe?
ReplyDeleteobama is caught lying and you cry "REAGAN!"
sheesh.
we have a choice - now.
either we elect mccain or obama.
no one else is on the ballot.
obama is a liar.
about this, ayers, wright, and much else.
why CHOOSE to vote for a liar?
i don;t get it.