Clinton: As president, I’ll let another genocide happen Update: HRC on Darfur
posted at 10:59 am on March 15, 2007 by Bryan
I ordinarily refrain from calling Hillary Clinton “the Hilldebeast.” Name calling is fun and all, but I don’t like it when liberals call my friend Michelle various names, and a certain decorum from our side might — I said might — help tone things down on the other side.
Yeah, that’s probably wishful thinking. And Hillary apparently wants to earn the nickname Hilldebeast, because her latest stance on Iraq is beastly.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced but significant military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.
In a half-hour interview on Tuesday in her Senate office, Mrs. Clinton said the scaled-down American military force that she would maintain in Iraq after taking office would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence — even if it descended into ethnic cleansing.
I pinched that quote from Capt Ed, who has this to say about it:
It’s abysmal, cynical, and completely self-serving. To commit the US to inaction in the face of genocide is nothing short of breathtaking, especially with the Left agitating for action — and rightly so — in Darfur. It should also remind voters of Bill Clinton’s record in Rwanda.
This statement shows a complete lack of strategic and tactical thinking on the part of someone who want to assume the role of Commander in Chief. The key to stabilizing Iraq and beating the terrorists who have nested in Anbar is restoring order to its capital. If the central government falls, the other goals she mentions — deterring Iran, protecting the Kurds, and so on — will go right out the window. If Baghdad falls into utter chaos and ethnic cleansing, the rest of the nation will follow suit in short order, and Anbar will be the least of our problems.
The dirty little secret of all this is, the leftwing Democrat base is perfectly fine with genocides as long as they’re far away. Not one Democrat I know of has ever expressed regret for the genocides that followed our retreat from Vietnam. Rep. David Obey brags about his role in that, on the way to justifying his role in allowing a whole new genocide in Iraq. He chides “idiot liberals” not for taking stances that promote US defeat and foster genocide; he chides “idiot liberals” for not getting out of his way so that he can promote US defeat and foster genocide.
On Darfur, we all know how that will work out. Liberals will agitate about it up to the moment US boots hit the ground there, and then those same liberals will squawk that we have no business policing the world and should just mind our own business. And provide universal healthcare for our own people instead of saving other people from the nasty, brutish and short lives that characterize much of the planet beyond our shores. The first American hangnail in Darfur would ramp up the calls to bring the troops home. I for one won’t play that game anymore. Like the old song says, I won’t be fooled again. Most liberals don’t actually care about human rights; they care about posturing about human rights to make themselves look sensitive and caring. Once they’ve done their 5-minutes daily compassion routine, it’s off to Starbucks for a triple latte.
Returning to Hillary, she’s a lightweight who sees her husband’s role in Rwanda not as a stain on his legacy, which it is, but as a template for America’s future role in the world. As president she would would let innocent men, women and children die so that she might appease the Kossacks. The left that dominates the Democrats today, that cuts and runs from fights in Iraq and on Fox News Channel, is inhuman. Blood will be on their hands. And they’re fine with that as long as they get their free trips to the doctor.
Update: Go ahead, make sense of this. I dare ya.