A Defending Crusader…

The best defense is to be good and offensive…or something like that.

No-bama

Posted by Godefroi on August 2, 2007

An interesting eye-opening scathing commentary at Israpundit.

——————————————————————————————————————————-

Barack Obama OK with Genocide (and Infanticide)

“Maybe Again,” instead of “Never Again.” Obama also opposed legal protections for babies that survive abortions.
by Bill Levinson

“It Didn’t Happen:” Democrats go soft on crimes against humanity by James Taranto in today’s Wall Street Journal reports,

Barack Obama’s latest pronouncement on Iraq should have shocked the conscience. In an interview with the Associated Press last week, the freshman Illinois senator and Democratic presidential candidate opined that even preventing genocide is not a sufficient reason to keep American troops in Iraq.

“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,” Mr. Obama told the AP. “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.”

Mr. Obama is engaging in sophistry. By his logic, if America lacks the capacity to intervene everywhere there is ethnic killing, it has no obligation to intervene anywhere–and perhaps an obligation to intervene nowhere. His reasoning elevates consistency into the cardinal virtue, making the perfect the enemy of the good.

Further, he elides the distinction between an act of omission (refraining from intervention in Congo and Darfur) and an act of commission (withdrawing from Iraq). The implication is that although the U.S. has had a military presence in Iraq since 1991, the fate of Iraqis is not America’s problem.

After the Holocaust (which killed three million Polish Catholics as well as six million Jews, plus assorted Gypsies, gay people, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Slavs), the world said “Never again.” “Never again” has proven an empty slogan. It has happened again:

(1) Uganda, where Idi Amin murdered Christians wholesale
(2) Rwanda
(3) Darfur (and Sudanese persecution of African Christians)
(4) Cambodia’s killing fields
(5) Vietnam
(6) Serbia/Bosnia/Kosovo (with both sides being accused of atrocities)
(7) Worldwide persecutions of Christians
(8) Saddam Hussein’s mass murders of ethnic Kurds, political opponents, and others
(9) Zimbabwe, where Robert Mugabe is starving his own people
(10) Gaza, where Hamas is starving its own people

We are not going to suggest that the United States spend its money and, more importantly, the lives of its citizen soldiers, to play knight-errant in every such situation around the world. On the other hand, as Taranto points out, withdrawal from Iraq is an act of commission, not omission. Furthermore, things can be done, like arming the victims of genocide and using overwhelming air power to smash the perpetrators’ infrastructure, that do not involve the commitment of American ground troops. We see no reason why small arms, ammunition, shoulder-fired rockets, and so on should not be air-dropped to the Christian Negroes who are being murdered or enslaved by the Janjaweed.

Of course, Holocaust deniers will argue with the premise that Hitler and his Nazis murdered anyone because of their religion or ethnicity, and John Kerry similarily denies the Holocaust that took place in Southeast Asia after the United States let the enemy win. Taranto adds,

One may take the position that genocide would not be the likely result of an American retreat from Iraq. That is the view of Mr. Obama’s Massachusetts colleague John Kerry, the 2004 presidential nominee. Mr. Kerry, who served in Vietnam before turning against that war, voted for the Iraq war before turning against it. He draws on the Vietnam experience in making the case that the outcome of a U.S. pullout from Iraq would not be that bad. “We heard that argument over and over again about the bloodbath that would engulf the entire Southeast Asia, and it didn’t happen,” he said recently.

…According to a 2001 investigation by the Orange County Register, Hanoi’s communist regime imprisoned a million Vietnamese without charge in “re-education” camps, where an estimated 165,000 perished. “Thousands were abused or tortured: their hands and legs shackled in painful positions for months, their skin slashed by bamboo canes studded with thorns, their veins injected with poisonous chemicals, their spirits broken with stories about relatives being killed,” the Register reported.

Right, Mr. Kerry (aka Genghis John the Khan, self-proclaimed war criminal), “it didn’t happen.” That’s what the “Holohoax” crowd says about Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Dachau: “It didn’t happen.” It seems that Barack Obama, who has already lined up with prominent racists and/or anti-Semites like Al Sharpton, Allan Houston (who, with a Knicks teammate, effectively called Jews “Christ Killers”) and Jeremiah Wright, has lined up with the “it didn’t happen” crowd as well.

Right. It didn’t happen, we were somewhere else, and besides, we were only following orders.

==================================

Update: We also learned that Obama, while an Illinois State Senator, orchestrated the defeat of the Illinois’ Born Alive Infants Protection Act. This legislation would have provided legal protection for infants that were born alive, including those delivered as the result of botched abortions. (See also “When a crying baby is not ‘alive’” by Jill Stanek.)

Here is what Obama said when arguing against Illinois’ Born Alive Infants Protection Act during Senate floor debate. This was legislation clarifying the terms “person,” “human being,” “child,” and “individual” in Illinois statutes included any baby born alive, no matter what gestational age or circumstance of birth:

“… I just want to suggest… that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.”

“Number one, whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – child, a 9-month-old – child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place.”

“I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.”

Incredible stuff. Not only did Obama make no sense, he showed just how far he would go to safeguard abortion.

Now it is not surprising that Obama doesn’t find genocide so objectionable. After all, the Nazis got started on “defective” infants, and only later progressed to killing mental defectives, followed by Jews, Gypsies, Poles, Slavs, and so on. This phony smile and empty suit may as well drop out of the Presidential race now. A lot of Pennsylvania Democrats are pro-life (we have a lot of Catholics in the state), and even pro-choice voters draw the line at killing live babies or putting them aside to die. Crawl back into your hole, Barack Hussein, and pull it in after you.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: