Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Night and Day, “Obama hates genocide” edition

The One of Alternating Stances last night:

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.

L’hypocrite supreme last year:

“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 …

Translation: Genocide is awful, unless it’s happening to Iraqis,  in which case “Who cares?”  Got it?

What an awful human being!  As Jacoby asks, “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?”  James 3:14 states that “But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your heart, do not be arrogant and so lie against the truth.”  Proverbs 19:5 warns “A false witness will not go unpunished, And he who tells lies will not escape.”  Something tells me that The One isn’t sweating it, and he is a fool for it.

October 8, 2008 Posted by | Darfur, hypocrisy, Iraq, Night and Day, Obama, shameful | 3 Comments

Jimmy the Dhimmi: Darfur isn’t genocide…but Israel, on the other hand…

Allah nails Jimmah on this one.

And to think I was worried that that supergroup he formed with Mandela might not be helpful.

“There is a legal definition of genocide and Darfur does not meet that legal standard. The atrocities were horrible but I don’t think it qualifies to be called genocide,” he said. Washington is almost alone in branding the 4 1/2 years of violence in Darfur genocide. Khartoum rejects the term, European governments are reluctant to use it and a U.N.-appointed commission of inquiry found no genocide, but that some individuals may have acted with genocidal intent. Carter, whose charitable foundation, the Carter Center, worked to establish the International Criminal Court (ICC), said: “If you read the law textbooks … you’ll see very clearly that it’s not genocide and to call it genocide falsely just to exaggerate a horrible situation I don’t think it helps.

The point here isn’t that he think Darfur fails to qualify as a textbook case of genocide; other international bodies agree, although most prominent American politicians do not. The point is that he’s resorting to a textbook definition in the first place. If you’re dealing with murder on a scale so massive that it might arguably constitute genocide, by what insane logic is it preferable to err on the side of saying that it isn’t genocide and thereby eschew the tremendous moral force that comes with that term? If it’s genocide then thoughts turn to the Holocaust and the world is compelled to intervene. If it isn’t then it’s a civil war gone bad that’ll work itself out — eventually. Jimmeh likes the latter approach because it appeases the Sudanese government and, theoretically, makes them more amenable to negotiations. After they’ve already killed 200,000 people.

That’s one reason why using the textbook definition is offensive. There’s another reason, too: namely, that Carter hasn’t always been such a stickler for precision when applying that vaunted moral yardstick of his. If it’s so desperately “unhelpful” to go throwing around the concept of genocide even when it arguably applies, explain this

The last link above shows where Peanuthead says that Israel is doing much worse than what’s happening in Darfur.  But no, Jimmah isn’t an anti-Semite who coddles dictators and mass murderers while poormouthing his own country!  Why would anyone think otherwise?  For those of you on the left, the prior two sentences were sarcasm.

October 8, 2007 Posted by | anti-Semitism, Carter, Darfur, dhimmitude, shameful | 4 Comments

Kofi’s replacement finds root cause of Darfur genocide

What else? Global “warming”! From Texas Rainmaker:

Looks like the crisis in Darfur is just another catastrophe engineered by SUVs and incandescent lightbulbs.

THE slaughter in Darfur was triggered by global climate change and that more such conflicts may be on the horizon, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon says in an article published today.

Whatever you do, don’t blame it on the religion of peace, whose members have launched attacks on civilians and driven them into makeshift villages in the Saharan desert.

“Hey, Ibrahim, you hot? Me, too. Let’s go kill thousands of people!”

June 17, 2007 Posted by | Darfur, global warming, United Nations | 3 Comments

"Iraq vs. Darfur – Just What Is a Worthy Call to One’s Conscience?"

An excellent post by the Federalist Society UofW Chapter regarding the left’s hypocrisy on Darfur:

These pictures, taken at the University Temple United Methodist Church across the street from the UW law school, illustrate perfectly the moral bankruptcy, hypocrisy, and vapidity of the left’s foreign policy worldview:

Around the country this weekend, tens of thousands of people marched in favor of the killing of countless Iraqis – the certain outcome if we were to retreat redeploy from that country. Whatever their signs may have said, it was clear what they wanted. They marched in favor of American defeat, in favor of the anti-democratic forces in Iraq, in favor of Fascist Iran’s geopolitical goals. They literally spat at an OIF veteran who dared to disagree with them. Why? Because Bush lied about WMDs, because our presence there only creates more terrorists, and because we’re only there for the oil anyway. (That none of these claims are in any way supported by facts have no impact, remember.) They claim to be anti-war, but the truth is that they don’t care about war unless the US has something to do with it. Or at least, they care far less about mass killings than about being anti-Bush. A call to one’s conscience indeed.

Why are the Christians in Darfur more worthy of being saved than the Kurds or Shi’ites were under Saddam’s Iraq? Why is the sectarian violence (some could say civil war) in the Sudan worthy of sending American troops to battle al Qaeda, IEDs, and an “endless war” in a country without any real government, when at the same time, it is a moral imperative that we guarantee the same deadly results in Iraq by withdrawing immediately?

Why is it that being a super power means we can only use force when it’s NOT related to our national interests? Even if the absurd conspiratorial accusations against Bush lying and terrorizing his way into Iraq were true, how do people who think it is worth American lives to prevent mass sectarian violence not demand we stay there?

There are no answers to these questions, of course. Darfur is hip, Iraq is not. That’s it. That’s the real difference. And Darfur has the added bonus of “never going to happen” because of French, Chinese, and Russian interests there. Which means the high school idealists, college-know-it-all hippies, academics, and other assorted activists can feel good about “making a difference” without ever having to face the consequences which come with the best intentioned humanitarian interventions.

Read the whole thing. It’s not long, and it’s certainly worth it to get a peep inside the empty gourds of leftists who brainlessly chant “No blood for oil!”

January 30, 2007 Posted by | Darfur, hypocrisy, Iraq, moonbats | 1 Comment