No attack too vile — McCain goes after Obama’s Holocaust remarks
It may only be July, and Election Day may still be 104 days away, but we’ve reached the point at which the McCain campaign is even willing to attack Barack Obama’s remembrance of the Nazi Holocaust.
Speaking today at Yad Vashem, Obama said, “Let our children come here and know this history so they can add their voices to proclaim ‘never again.’ And may we remember those who perished, not only as victims but also as individuals who hoped and loved and dreamed like us and who have become symbols of the human spirit.”
Soon after, the hopelessly tasteless McCain campaign alerted reporters to a news item from a year ago.
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.
In other words, the McCain campaign wants Americans to believe that Obama is weak on genocide. Asked for clarification, McCain aide Michael Goldfarb told the Huffington Post, “Today he says ‘never again.’ A year ago stopping genocide wasn’t a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces in Iraq. Doesn’t that strike you as inconsistent?”
Not for those of us with cerebral cortexes.
As I explained a year ago, it’s not especially complicated. Obama wasn’t suggesting genocide is tolerable, and he wasn’t advocating indifference for murder on a grand scale. He was simply making the point that if genocidal attacks alone were the basis for a massive military deployments, we’d have deployed thousands of U.S. troops to central Africa right now. That we haven’t suggests that genocide — or in the case of Iraq, speculative potential for genocide — does not drive U.S. military deployments.
But in response to this obvious observation, the McCain campaign has decided Obama, speaking in Israel about “never again,” must be insincere.
There’s something deeply wrong with these people. I know McCain brought in Rove’s team to run the show, but his campaign operation is getting … ugly.
The HuffPost added:
It’s a heavy charge to make, not least because Obama had just wrapped up his visit to the Holocaust memorial. In addition, there are, for better or worse, outstanding implications when discussing genocide when it comes to Jews — and the insertion of the issue into the presidential campaign will border for some, on the taboo. Moreover, on the topic of Iraq, Obama has said he would leave a residual force to intervene in potential humanitarian crises and that he reserves the right to intervene militarily with international partners in order to “suppress potential genocidal violence within Iraq.”
Update: An alert reader emailed me the Genocide Intervention Network’s “Darfur Scores” report cards. Here are Obama’s grades on Darfur:
2006: A+
2007: A
2008: A
And here are McCain’s grades:
2006: B
2007: C
2008: C
Desperation tactics, which play well only to those already convinced.
The moderates will be saddened, and appalled, and the polls will be brutal.
Buh bye, Mr. McCain.
I invoke Godwin’s law on the campaign. Can we call it over now, and just point out that McCain is pretty much sitting in a corner, pointing a finger at Obama, and yelling, “NAZI!”?
So McCain wants to send 300,000 troops to the Congo?
Well, Obama DID lie about his uncle liberating that concentration camp.
What lie was that, exactly, JakeD? Misstating the NAME of the camp hardly rises to the level of a lie. By that argument, McCain LIED about geography when he said Iraq & Pakistan shared a border.
It is true that among genocides, the Nazi holocaust does have a particular privileged place in American political discussion, not because there aren’t other human tragedies within our scope of influence, but because of understandably disproportionate levels of advocacy.
In softball lots of games have a 15 (or so) rule where if the other team is pounding their opponent by 15 or more runs, it should be considered a rout and the game should end for humanitarian reasons. Enough is enough. When McAce resorts to this type of poop, it means the zenith for the 15 run rule has , in effect, passed, and the game should be called. This is ugly now and will get very ugly very soon. So far Obama’s camp is been eerily silent on a lot of this horse puck…
Why should the Obama camp say anything…..give a man enough rope…….
This doesn’t – for once – look like an unscripted moment. It comes in tandem with Lieberman going back to play footsie with the rabidly pro-Israel Reverend Hagee.
It’s dirty politics to be sure, but this is a roll-your-sleeves-up effort to pull as many Jewish voters as possible over to McCain by making their pro-Israel stance seem harder and more partisan than Obama’s.
Schmidt is unpleasant, but he’s not a fool. My guess is that he’s looked at the electoral map and decided to try to secure Florida, delegate rich and with its large elderly Jewish population, firmly as a red state.
Obama can swan around the Middle East in a warm presidential haze, but Schmidt sees a more workmanlike opportunity to influence a key constituency. He believes, rightly or wrongly, that nobody’s vote is swung by becoming a darling of Middle Easterm muslims. In fact, part of his campaign pitch to that constituency is probably that a friend of Islam can be no friend of Israel.
Jon B.:
“Misstatement” or “lie” — our opinions vary — but it goes to the issue of whether Obama is weak on genocide not not. We can, at least, agree that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a good enough reason, according to Obama, to keep U.S. forces there, right?
Jake D is a troll. We throw him off the bus at Think Progress all the time. If you want to waste time debating with an unarmed rival, please have at Jake D.
JAKE D IS A TROLL AND A FRAUD.
Obama’s campaign is thinking. Think first, discuss,evaluate, think some more then act. It’s how well adjusted, intelligent adults take care of business.
It’s disconcerting to me that the more desperate McCain sounds, the more he rises and Obama’s support goes down in the national who-ya-gonna-vote-for polls. What explains this weird phenomenon?
Is it possible America really wants to elect a desperate loser? Remember, we’re currently “enjoying” eight years of George Bush.
Crankily Curious,
The New York Crank
I thought that “trolls” won’t discuss the thread topics? You know, for instance, whether or not Barack Obama thinks that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq is a good enough reaso, to keep U.S. forces there?
amy:
Let’s discuss then. What do YOU think about whether or not preventing a potential genocide in Iraq is a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there?
nah, trolls just keep babbling the same old crap over and over again and think they sound intelligent.
You’re right, Tom. Waste of my time.
DNFtEC.
Racer X:
What do YOU think about whether or not preventing a potential genocide in Iraq is a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there?
Karl Rove’s team uses Karl Rove’s methods, which were never more than cheap, bullying fratboy stunts that only worked because no one had ever used them on the national level before and no one could believe that anyone would ever try.
If this is all they have, they have no chance of success because that train left the station a very long time ago and people just aren’t falling for it anymore.
Curmudgeon:
What do YOU think about whether or not preventing a potential genocide in Iraq is a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there?
Since it is fine not to talk to converses all the time and since JakeD’s is a legitimate question I feel compelled to answer that I, personally, do not think that the prevention of genocide is enough reason to keep the current amount of US troops on Iraq.
I think, however, that a UN force should be deployed in places where there is a high chance that a genocide might start. The whole western/developed/civilised world has done too little in most places where this has happened before. They should’ve done better, they know better and if it were the case in Iraq they should do better.
Thank you, MarkIII, for at least answering the question. It’s O.K. with me if no one else wants to. Maybe when zeitgeist gets here, we can have a real discussion on the thread topic …
Darfur? Who is the president right now again? Okay, so he is a lame duck. Darfur has been happening for quite some time. Wasn’t he going to be the greatest American President in History, if not in the hearts of the American People during his administration. Do you think that ignoring Darfur is going to help that ‘legacy’.
Republican’ts only open their mouths to lie.
JakeD you misinfomed cretin you, don’t you realize that the ethnic cleansing and genocide has already happened in Iraq, between Sunni and Shia? This is a big reason we have seen a downturn in violence. You see, they have already killed about everyone they’re going to kill.
Let me make it clear for you: There will be no genocide in Iraq, it already happened.
OK Jake, I will bite.
If stopping genocide is our number one policy goal (and it is a noble policy goal), then how does one compare the potential for genocide in Iraq with the actual and ongoing genocides in the Congo and Darfur (not to mention Uganda,Barundi, Ethiopia,)? I would suspect that the potential for genocide is much higher in Somalia and Zimbabwe than Iraq; should we put those on the list?
Seriously, is your position that the US should intervene anywhere and everywhere there is a potentially genocidal conflict with massive US troop deployment? Because that is not sustainable. It is also hard to accept coming from Republicans who refused to support Clinton and NATO when they sought to pre-empt a genocide in the Balkans. Then, we weren’t supposed to be the world’s policeman. Now, we are. But it has nothing to do with oil or military bases right?
I think one of the things I find most bothersome about Republicans is their transparent lies. If it is in the nation’s interest to secure military bases and oil reserves, then make that case, but don’t insult our intelligence with BS about democracy or humanitarian concerns; the Republic Party has demonstrated for decades that they care not a whit about those things.
To answer your question, I don’t think the talk of people who have been wrong about every single aspect of the Iraq situation should be allowed to steer policy any longer in a region they have so completely screwed up. Why- after you all lied about WMD and al Quaida links and Sunni/Shi’ite cooperation and about every other single aspect of this debacle — should we take your prediction that there will INEVITABLY be a genocide in Iraq? You’ve cried wolf too many times. You lied too many times. You’ve lost any semblance of credibility.
Now go sit in the corner and think about what you’ve done.
citizen_pain:
Then it should be very easy for you to agree to return U.S. forces to Iraq in the (non) event that happens. Thank you for playing.
P.S. Notice that I do not resort to ad hominem attacks against you.
Remedy for JakeD issue:
http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/27384
LOL, Buffalonian — you didn’t really answer the question by simply claiming it would be “unsustainable” and then posing a lot of other questions — I would be more than happy to answer all of your questions once you answer my pending question.
NO, I totally disagree. Your leaders, the Bu$h cabal, have said repeatedly that when the Iraqis stand up, we’ll stand down.
Well, I think it’s pretty clear that they want to stand up. It’s time to bring the combat troops home.
Anyway, since you are such a staunch supporter of necon foregn policy, then you must be in agreement with them that all muslims want to kill Americans and dominate the world. If that is what you truly believe, then why are you now so adamantly lobbying for the continued presence of troops to prevent possible genocide?
I thought you people hated arabs? Why then would you want to prevent them from killing each other?
Please. You need to figure out exactly why you still support this occupation. I honestly think you don’t know, you just defend due to some sort of involuntary reaction.
What do YOU think about whether or not preventing a potential genocide in Iraq is a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there?
This is an intellectually dishonest question and line of attack. John McCain’s position on this is no different than Obama’s. Does McCain think Genocide alone is enough reason for committing American troops? Or does he believe there has to be some other compelling American interest involved to meet that threshold? Obviously America does not get involved in every potential genocidal situation, because that would not be practically or logistically possible. What America can do is show the leadership to martial the forces of other nations, political, economic, intelligence, military and moral- to prevent and ameliorate these situations.
Fine. Will someone let me know when zeitgeist gets here, so I can at least have a discussion on the actual thread topic? Thanks.
JakeD – why are you not calling for the impeachment of Bush, given all of the (potential and actual ) genocidal places in the world (already mentioned in Buffalonian’s comment)? W obviously has fallen so far short of your lofty standards that he should be removed from office for allowing these crimes to continue.
I understand genuine concern, but I can smell the bullshit from the other side of the globe on this trolling of yours. Answer MY question if you dare respond to my comment.
The argument isn’t framed properly
We seldom if ever step in to stop genocide. Cambodia, Rwanda, Congo, Zimbabwe (?) Stalin. Even in WWII, we primarily went in to stop Hitler’s advance, not his genocide. We step in for geopolitical reasons right or wrong – Iraq wrong
We must be careful about the designation ‘troll’. Nevertheless, one might notice that JakeD’s technique, quite regularly, is to throw out what he hopes will be a contentious question without stating a position on the issue himself. In today’s thread, he responds to all sorts of commentary by asking the posters to answer what is in fact a difficult question: when does genocide justify military intervention in an otherwise sovereign country?
But does JakeD himself begin by suggesting an answer? Do his posts and his criticism of Obama lead clearly to the conclusion that JakeD (or for that matter John McCain) always support intervention in genocide? Never support it? Support it sometimes, but not other times?
No!
JakeD wants other posters to argue, and to get one another angry and possibly say things that might be harmful to Obama. Thus, I conclude that although JakeD is probably not a shill, he qualifies as the kind of troll who seeks to sow discord among those he disagrees with.
Incidentally, he also starts his interventions with a slime move — Obama’s alleged ‘lie’ about his uncle — which further reinforces the conclusion that he is a troll.
For this reason, even though the question he seeks to have us answer is a serious one, and deserves serious attention, answering JakeD’s posts is a mistake.
When JakeD wants a serious discussion, he’ll lay out a position, rather than trying to get the rest of us to argue.
For all these reasons, this will also be my last post that responds to JakeD either directly or indirectly.
JakeD.
I believe Citizen Pain has it right. Unfortunately, our invasion of Iraq CREATED the conditions for the ethnic cleansing that ALREADY TOOK PLACE. Now that most regions and neighborhoods have been divided into Shia or Sunni the level of violence has gone down…and it isn’t likely to start up again.
In the broader context, we in the Western countries need to be on the lookout for flair-ups of ethnic cleansing whereever it happens and through the UN organize rapid response teams to stamp it out before it grows into a massive problem.
A policy of unilateral, large scale military invasions by the US once a genocide is in full swing is not a practical or sustainable policy.
well, JakeD, while running the risk of being accused of ad hominem attacks, I would suggest that the answer you were seeking is clearly discernible from my answer. Basic reading comprehension skills should have sufficed.
Yet, because I did not explicitly say “No, I do not think that the potential for genocide in Iraq is enough by itself to maintain troops there indefinitely”, you claim that I didn’t answer your question.
This is why people accuse you of being a troll. Because you are not actually interested in a conversation, but rather revel in scoring lame-ass points by claiming moral superiority.
I think I have answered your question. Now, please answer mine. You see, what I did was take your position and extrapolate out the logical consequences of your position. You implied that the threat of genocide alone warranted 100,000+ US troops. If that is the case, then what about all the other genocides? If we’re going to try to stop them all, where are these resources going to come from?
These are not attempts to avoid your question but an attempt to engage them. If I wanted to avoid them, I’d call you an idiot who couldn’t possibly believe what you’re saying and a troll.
Re: Buffalonian
Nice reply there to Jake. Your post got me thinking (I completely agree by the way) – isn’t it kind of ironic that the US military gave up their long standing military bases in Newfoundland at the precise moment when off-shore drilling became feasible?
(that’s really a propos of nothing – it’s just always made me smile)
p.s. nice to see another Salon convert over here! – Kaufman and Kamiya are pretty much the only reasons I visit there anymore.
I thought it was offensive to Jews to equate anything to the Holocaust.
Could this backfire on McCain, even among his Jewish supporters?
1) Ethnic cleansing has been happening in Iraq while our forces are there.
2) Obama was the primary sponsor of the ”Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act of 2005″ (S.2125) in the 109th Congress, signed into law by President Bush on December 22, 2006. The bill sought to “promote relief, security, and democracy in the Democratic Republic of Congo.”
3) Article today: interview with Obama’s great uncle Charlie http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jE4XAjXFTTV9dezwIQrm6OxP5I9AD9237T580
“Helping liberate Ohrdruf, a subcamp of the Buchenwald concentration camp, in April 1945 was (Charles)Payne’s first close brush with history.
He is enjoying, for the most part, a second brush as the great-uncle of the Democratic presidential candidate.
In May, Obama mentioned “Uncle Charlie” at a meeting with veterans but mistakenly said Payne had helped liberate Auschwitz, when he should have said Buchenwald. Bloggers seized on the error and the Republican Party demanded an explanation.
Obama’s campaign corrected the mistake the next day. Soviet forces liberated Auschwitz as they marched across Poland in January 1945.
Payne, with an Obama button pinned to his shirt, told the AP he was “truly astonished” by the attention paid to Obama’s flub. The brother of Obama’s maternal grandmother, Payne figures Obama heard the story wrong from his grandparents, “whose grasp of geography wasn’t always the firmest.” He said at the time he asked friends if he should “try to set the record straight,” but that they advised him to ignore it.
Payne said he didn’t want to say anything to embarrass the Obama campaign and minimized his role in the liberation of Ohrdruf.
“I have no heroic story to tell,” he said. “I was just there.”
He had seen plenty of death during his two years in the Army, but the cruelty of what he witnessed at Ohrdruf appalled him.
Payne is proud of his great-nephew, who is prominently displayed in family photos.
“He’s truly an astounding young man and always has been,” he said.”
More at link.
If BHO could turn into Pinocchio, his nose would be twice as long as Bill Clintons.
He changes his position and his mind as needed, he is totally untrustworthy.
mesmer
Wow! That’s a pretty intelligent comment. I wish I’d thought that one up.
Yeah, I didn’t wanted to stand out, sorry I failed!
of course, one would be remiss if one didn’t mention that Obama hand-picked Samantha Power – a universally recognized expert of genocide to be an advisor.
Were it not for one ill-timed phrase on her part…
sigh
Yes Steve, the campaign has gotten ugly, and it’s only going to get worse. Please spare us the naive outrage and surprise. It’s been perfectly obvious for months that with the Rethugs on the defensive they will become far more vile than usual. There is no bottom to their campaign, and the media will just urge it on. Fortunately Obama is no dummy and does have things to say even though he has made some bad calls of late.
Fact check time on both sides:
Fast Eddie: Hagee is not ‘pro-Israel” in the slightest. He is pro-Armageddon — which in his theology will bring about the Second Coming and which has, as its prelude first a return of all Jews to Israel and then an attack on Israel in which most of the Jews who do not convert will be slaughtered — the converting ones will in some miraculous way be protected.
Even on a strictly political viewpoint, he does not support Israel — which is a secular democracy with a wide range of opinions — but the Likud Party, which is not the dominant party in Israel.
Matthew: Sadly, we did NOT enter WWII to stop Hitler’s advance either — that was Britain, though we supported them with supplies. We entered the war because of the following sequence:
Japan attacked at Pearl Harbor
We declared war on Japan
Hitler — unprecedentedly — lived up to his committment to his Japanese allies and declared war on us.
JakeD: There was no genocide in Iraq, or even major tension between the two groups — read any blog by an Iraqi and there are plenty of them — before we got there. Saddam was a dictator but (as with Tito and the ethnic groups in what was Yugoslavia) he kept this tension at a minimum. Once we removed Saddam — with no plans on what was to follow — the groups began to fight for position and this reignited the tension between them. As to whether we have been at all effective in stopping what we started is a good question. Any answers? (Btw, you may be a bit of a troll, and you get things wrong, but you do attempt to at least mention real issues, so I don’t think the ‘no troll-feeding’ rule should apply to you.)
Thanks, Prup, but try telling the (remaining) Khurds that there was no genocide. My “answer” for Iraq is to stay there until the job is done.
JakeD, not sure I can be much help on this one. I think it somewhat distasteful to have a debate around the margins while ignoring the egregiousness of McCain’s odd attack-by-innuendo on what should have been a very somber and apolitical moment – the rememberance of the victims of the Holocaust. Really, McCain has no shame. Your efforts to treat it like a benign and legitimate policy question (while interesting) really can’t bail your buddy McCain out of this one. He hasn’t just pushed against the old “politics end at the water” doctrine, he smashed it to pieces like a recklessly flown fighter plane.
JakeD: Good point about the Kurds — who are not popular anywhere in the region because they want their own homeland. They did suffer — mostly because GHWB backed away from his promise to support them.
But ‘until the job is done’???? The only way our presence is slowing the hatred is because the citizens hate us more than they do each other. If you can explain how we are able to produce a situation by our own presence that will in any way ensure an end to this hatred, you might be worth listening to, but other than a full scale imperial taking over the country, I don’t see how we could do that. On the other hand, by leaving, but working with the countries in the region — not the most likable folks, true but groups that have a stake in seeing the others don’t get too big a levarage, we might be able to produce either a stable country or a Yugoslavia-type split.
I’m not sure this is the best path to go, but it is obvious that the way we have been going isn’t working — for them or for us. Without us to blame or to shove the responsibility on to, they might be forced to create a stable government, and stop the slaughter of the civilians there.
Btw, I am sick and tired of hearing the war defended or decried on the basis of our interests. The Iraqis are as much people as we are, and their deaths are as important — and much more numerous — than ours. This is one reason why I find McCain’s ‘Oh, we’ll stay for a hundred years if our troops aren’t getting killed’ so annoying — to put it very mildly. (It is also why I find newsstories that focus on the number of our deaths annoying.)
Our leaving might result in a spurt of deaths, but then the Iraqis would have to handle the situation themselves, and they aren’t so happy about being killed, so maybe they could do something to create their own stable government. (I’d hope it would be at least somewhat democratic, but this would require the secularists to get control of the reins of power.) Sadly ‘we broke it’ but that doesn’t mean we have any idea how to fix it, and whatever the solution the Iraqis come up with is likely to be better than any one that leaves us trying to settle things in an area that we — for the most part — don’t understand, especially the Republicans.
Jake D – Loved your answer. Only one problem: Nobody has defined what “THE JOB” is – except to say it’s “Victory”……….. in which case, nobody has defined what “victory” is, except to say it’s “getting the job done”……………
etc.
etc.
etc.
JakeD, assertion isn’t fact. Cite a neutral news source (if you won’t cite Fox and the like, I won’t cite Counterpunch), that provides some evidence of genocide? I am aware of various attacks against the Kurds post Desert Storm, but what evidence is there of ongoing genocide? For example, Juan Cole, a scholar on the region, makes note of the gassing of the Kurds in 1988, and suggests that it may be a legitimate reason for war. However, that clearly predates the U.S. occupation, and can’t really be a valid reason to stay in Iraq (otherwise, we’d still be in Germany to prevent further attacks on the Jewish population there). As far as I am aware, there is a relatively stable Kurdish population in the north, and they haven’t been the targets of a major offensive recently. That’s one reason why they’ve dropped out of most media reports: there’s little violence there.
Define the “job” that needs to be done. Originally, it was to ensure that there were no WMD’s and to remove Hussein from power. Since those have been accomplished, asserting that we need to stay is fine, but without some clearly articulated goal, then what can anyone say about the issue?
Obama’s argument isn’t that genocide isn’t a legitimate causis belli, but rather, that if that is, indeed, the reason for the occupation of Iraq, then we should be deploying similar forces in places like Darfur. The fact that Bush refuses to do so suggests that this justification is a rhetorical dodge. What is the reasoning behind avenging Saddam Hussein’s attacks in 88 now, when there is ethnic cleansing currently happening in other countries?
JakeD: “My “answer” for Iraq is to stay there until the job is done.”
What “job” would that be? Finding the WMDs? Were none. The UN weapons inspectors new that going in. Dismantling terrorist training camps? Were none. The intelligence community knew that going in.
We did not commit to a $750 Billion (and counting), 4,000+ dead (and counting), and 30,000 wounded (and counting) war to prevent a genocide. Now that we are up to our eyeballs, the rationale changes.
Where will Obama go next? Germany, what will McCain lie and whine about there, then France, I am sure McCain hates France, the UK, McCain will have some snide remark about that. Oh and today on the midday news in North Carolina they said that because of people not driving so much, because of gas prices, gas tax receipts had gone down, road building & repairs would have to be postponed, jobs would be lost etc, etc. Once again Obama’s prophecy appears right on. Not so McCain’s gas tax holday!
zeitgist:
Oh well, I was hopeful you would participate, so that’s disappointing. If you want to actually join the substantive policy discussion, see my comments below.
Prup (and Linda, if you are actually interested in a civil debate too):
Can we at least agree that the “job” is a stable democracy in Iraq? Just look at Japan, for instance. MacArthur eventually stepped down as Governor — we still have bases there — why don’t you think Iraq can work out the same way? Until then, I do believe the U.S. has a moral responsibility to ensure there’s not ANOTHER genocide in Iraq — you are right to blame GHW Bush for failing in that regard, but that’s one of the big limitations of trying to cobble together a regional coalition, right?
Look, I’ll come clean and admit that I posed my original question even though I, actually, agree that the U.S. cannot intervene in every other potential genocide. But there’s no hiding the fact that such a position is “weak” on genocide. By definition, if we don’t intervene directly and then genocide takes place, we are the only remaining world superpower. So, here’s what I think we should do. The United States government should pursue worldwide policies that secure America’s national interests — directly if needed — while also helping African (and all other) nations build stronger, more stable democracies themselves. Private citizen aid and indirect intervention is about all I am willing to do at this point. For instance, have you heard of Rick Warren’s P.E.A.C.E. Plan for Rwanda? That’s at least better than doing nothing. This position paper says is much better than I can:
“In an increasingly globalized world, the United States and other leading nations cannot afford to ignore Africa’s problems. But while the U.S. should intervene militarily in Africa where U.S. vital interests are threatened, it cannot police the continent by sending in ground forces to all its numerous trouble spots.
Instead, the U.S. ought to establish a command that can focus more closely on Africa’s problems, lend assistance to favorable African militaries so that they can tackle their own problems better, and build up the ability of regional superpowers South Africa and Nigeria to resolve regional problems. Ultimately, the establishment of such a U.S. Africa command will reduce the need for Washington to intervene in the continent.”
More details can be found at http://www.heritage.org/Research/africa/bg1697.cfm
Diogenes and michael k:
Yes, the original job was to ensure that there were no WMD’s and to remove Hussein from power — the job now is “stable democracy” in Iraq (see my post to Prup). Are you claiming that job is impossible? If Japan went from a completely anti-democratic culture to the shining beacon of the Far East, so can Iraq.
“If Japan went from a completely anti-democratic culture to the shining beacon of the Far East”
Well I guess that’s accurate, if only you consider its competition.
😉
JakeD
We were attacked by Japan, defeated them, and received their unconditional surrender.
Big difference.
The U.S. had a few rough patches early on too (i.e. War of 1812, anybody?)
michael k:
So, you are saying the ONLY hope for a flourishing democracy in Iraq is to nuke them? I thought that was only spouted on right-wing talk radio?
Really, guys, take a look at the Heritage position paper, or even the P.E.A.C.E Plan in Rwanda, and let me know how you think we could improve on those? I will check back in tonight for any positive discussion points. Take care.
P.S. Calling somone “an idiot who couldn’t possibly believe what you’re saying and a troll” is not what I’d classify as POSITIVE, but probably right in line with “No attack too vile” …
Fact check time on both sides:
Fast Eddie: Hagee is not ‘pro-Israel” in the slightest. He is pro-Armageddon — which in his theology will bring about the Second Coming and which has, as its prelude first a return of all Jews to Israel and then an attack on Israel in which most of the Jews who do not convert will be slaughtered — the converting ones will in some miraculous way be protected.
Even on a strictly political viewpoint, he does not support Israel — which is a secular democracy with a wide range of opinions — but the Likud Party, which is not the dominant party in Israel.
Hagee is a stalwart supporter of the state of Israel, believing its existence to be proof of the truth of biblical prophesy. In political terms, he’s the most visible face in organizations such as Christians United for Israel. Does his reading of the Bible entail the eternal damnation of the Jews and all other non-believers come Rapture time? It sure does, but it’s not exactly in big bold type on his CV to the Jewish lobby.
The point I was making is that Lieberman was cozying up to Hagee because (a) the perception is out there that Hagee is hardcore pro-Israel (whether you agree with that perception or not) which plays well to the Jewish constituency and – while I think of it, I’ll add – (b) starts a measure of rapprochement between the McCainites and the fundies faction that Hagee is a part of.
These guys may not even like each other, but they’ll unite in their common hatred of Obama.
JakeD: “So, you are saying the ONLY hope for a flourishing democracy in Iraq is to nuke them?”
I didn’t say that, you did. I don’t even know why I’m responding to such an idiotic statement.
See ya.
Well, since JakeD won’t answer my question (@ # 32), I’ll do it for him:
BuzzMon – Concerning Dear Father George W. Bush (He That Can Do No Wrong, Blessed be the Air he Exhales)
IOKIYAR
During World War II, America didn’t really invade Germany to save human lives. The scope of the horror came as a bit of a surprise to many.
McCain is rewriting history, assuming he knows what it used to be.
Is it fair to say Bosnia was the first strictly anti-genocide war?
I guess we should ask McCain if he was against protecting Muslims in Bosnia from Serbian Christian butchery.
Oh, wait. Don’t bother. He WAS.
McCain on Bosnia:- April 23, 1993
“If we find ourselves involved in a conflict in which American casualties mount, in which there is no end in sight, in which we take sides in a foreign civil war, in which American fighting men and women have great difficulty distinguishing between friend and foe, then I suggest that American support for military involvement would rapidly evaporate.”
Kinda spooky.
JakeD: “My “answer” for Iraq is to stay there until the job is done.”
What if the Iraqi government decides that “the job” is done, but US commanders disagree, then what?
“The U.S. had a few rough patches early on too (i.e. War of 1812, anybody?)”
Actually, I’d go farther back: Shay’s Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion, and the First Barbary War.
But those were insurections and wars that we, as a nation, faced on our own.
Luckily for us, the French decided that they didn’t need to stick around after the Treaty of Paris to make sure the “conditions on the ground” were perfect.
Good points, although, I doubt that anyone is asking for “perfect” (I mean, just look at us, the day after the 2000 election in Florida ; )
Well, what would be ideal conditions?
A working government? Check.
A security force that can operate independent of US forces? Got that.
Iraqi control of the majority of countries? Yep.
Violence staying low? Still going strong.
Improved relations between Iraq and its neighbors? Got that, too.
So what exactly are we waiting for?
“(I mean, just look at us, the day after the 2000 election in Florida ; )”
Iraq also seems to be having a problem, over the next national elections.
But, like in the case of 2000, there hasn’t been any outbreak of violence over this problem. They seem to be handling it like a responsible, sovereign nation.
Once again, why are we still there?
“Iraqi control of the majority of countries? Yep.”
Whoops, should be “Iraqi control of the majority of country?”
Well, as I recall, Gen. Petraeus is most concerned about stemming the flow of insurgents through Syria over ACTUAL borders posing the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq. Of course, we can’t control our own southern border either. Once we can be sure violence has, in fact, subsided and will stay that way when we leave, I think conditions would be right for withdrawal.
And, as Prup (aka Jim Benton) noted above, violence (esp. among the Iraqis themselves) is not THAT low.
“Gen. Petraeus is most concerned about stemming the flow of insurgents through Syria over ACTUAL borders posing the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq.”
I thought the Iraqi Sunnis, particularly in the western provinces, were rejecting foreigners. Isn’t that what the Anbar Awakening was all about? Insurgencies rely on local support to sustain operations. If the support isn’t there, then the insurgents pretty much wither away.
“Once we can be sure violence has, in fact, subsided and will stay that way when we leave, I think conditions would be right for withdrawal.”
So what would be considered an acceptable level of violence for US forces to leave? At what point will Iraqi forces be responsible for dealing with violence in their country?
And I ask again: If the Iraqi government decides it’s time for US forces to leave, but American commanders don’t agree, then what?
I’d stick with American comanders, but that’s probably just me ; )
Can we, at least, get every-day violence down to “acceptable” metro D.C. levels?
It is truly a shame that McCain’s campaign felt it necessary to stoop this low. Petty attacks like these trivialize one of the worst atrocities to afflict the world.
One needs to remind the McCain camp that their candidate’s support for the ill-fated venture into Iraq resulted in a period of ethnic cleansing that dwarfs most in the region.
I would think the Iraqis would know what was best for their country, but that’s just me.
And I also think the Iraqis can, and are willing to, get the violence down in their own city.
But once again, that’s just me.
To the victor go the spoils …
Can we stop genocide in Iraq?
I think that’s the question. Not ‘Should we stop genocide’ which is an obvious yes.
As it is, the answer is probably ‘no’.
That’s a good question, too. If we really wanted to (i.e. putting the country on a WWII footing) we could do it. Maybe that’s why you included “probably”? Now, while you and I make think that my question is an “obvious” yes, I’ve had quite a difficult time convincing your comrades, above.
make = may
We Should start calling him “McRove”
“To the victor goes the spoils?”
What happened to “Iraqi Freedom”?
Even MacArthur had to rule Japan for a while …
Until 1949, five years after the end of World War II. If it hadn’t been for the threat of Soviet aggression, American forces there and in Europe would have left rather quickly.
Now, here we are over five years after the overthrow of Saddam’s government, with an Iraqi government in place, with no external threat to the country (no, there is no Iranian military juggernaut ready to roll into Baghdad once the US leaves), and there still is no end in sight as to when the occupiers are going to leave and let the new government stand on its own two feet.
You have to take the training wheels off at some time.
My bad, FOUR years after the end of WW II
I guess the McCain camp decided not to research what others had said at Yad Vashem. Here’s a quote that might have given them some pause to rethink their desperate attack:
“But we wish to remember for a purpose, namely to ensure that never again will evil prevail, as it did for the millions of innocent victims of Nazism.” Pope John Paul II, March 23, 2000.
Pretty much expresses the same thought as Obama, huh? Did McCain find reason to criticize that too?
Riiiiiiight!
So McCain has the audacity to criticize Obama’s stances regarding genocides when McCain does not support simple recognition by our government of the Armenian Genocide (whose survivors received miilions of dollars in aid from the people of the U.S. during its immediate aftermath) and Obama does.
“Ugly” doesn’t do this level of depraved double standard justice.
people have got to remember not just 6 million Jews were slaughtered and killed in the HOLOCAUST but 6 million others that helped the Jews hid and people like the disabled, mentally retarded, gay, gypsy, and thousands of others were killed because of there status. i pray every year year on Yom Ha’shoah (Holocaust) for the 6 million, 2 million children and million adults who were murdered in the Nazi Occupied Germany and the countries all around. if McCain wants to send troops to Darfur it is way to late for that. you also have got to remember that Israel is the Jewish homeland and has always been. Jews like my ancestors were exiled out of Spain during the 1400s during the Spanish Inquisition, and many other countries. before 1975 IN COMMUNIST USSR jews were not allowed to leave THE SOVIET UNION. “NEVER AGAIN” are the right words for it. Obama said that right words. The Pope John Paul II said the right words.