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.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Bravo. Now can we question these SonsOfBarbraStreisands patriotism. Cowards all.

marianpaul on March 15, 2007 at 11:08 AM

I’ll bet she would change her mind if Iraq’s Christian minority had the ability and cojones to actively participate; after all, that’s the standard her husband set.

steveegg on March 15, 2007 at 11:08 AM

Bravo. Now can we question these SonsOfBarbraStreisands patriotism. Cowards all.

marianpaul on March 15, 2007 at 11:08 AM

No…but we can question the country their allegiances align with.

steveegg on March 15, 2007 at 11:09 AM

Most liberals don’t actually care about human rights; they care about posturing about human rights to make themselves look sensitive and caring.

I think most liberal POLITICIANS really only care about two things. 1. Themselves and 2. Power.

They truly believe they are the elite of our country, they believe they are smarter than the rest of us, that they are the upper class, our bettors, the all wise and all knowing ones who will show us the way to paradise – by edict, NOT by example.

Fatal on March 15, 2007 at 11:14 AM

I always refer to the senator from NY as Herself. It isn’t disrespectful, but it conveys her self rightousness. Fatal put it just right – she thinks she’s elite.

Ellen on March 15, 2007 at 11:21 AM

The dirty little secret of all this is, the leftwing Democrat base is perfectly fine with genocides as long as they’re far away.

Isn’t that the dirty little secret about all of us? I don’t know anyone, conservative or liberal, who’s losing sleep over Darfur. We talk about it because it’s bad and horrible, but are we really going to do anything about it? Of course not, partially because we can’t do anything about it, but also because deep down we don’t care.

Sure genocide is awful, but that’s what life is – awful. I think most people interalize that reality by the time they’re 25.

Enrique on March 15, 2007 at 11:21 AM

a complete lack of strategic and tactical thinking on the part of someone who want to assume the role of Commander in Chief.

That statement could apply to any and all Democrat candidates.

infidel4life on March 15, 2007 at 11:22 AM

Bryan, I couldn’t agree more. I can’t stand Hillary. To make matters worse, my brother works for a democratic state rep just outside of Philly and his fiancee is a huge Hillary fan. I can’t believe this girl is going to be my sister-in-law, the two of them drive me crazy!

SAM 1X on March 15, 2007 at 11:26 AM

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.

That’s it exactly, too. They’d push us to it, then blame Bush.

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.

Or perhaps on to a Gulf 4 private Jet, to cause more carbon emissions than my Pacifica does, in a year, to go to a global warming conference.

amerpundit on March 15, 2007 at 11:43 AM

BTW, Bryan, perfect pic.

amerpundit on March 15, 2007 at 11:44 AM

Way to take a stand for moral vacancy there, Hill.

Let me see – so, if she’s president and a group of terrorists in Iraq, excuse me, “sectarians” lined up a group of random people outside the gates of the American embassy or one of our bases and proceeded to drill holes in their heads, she expects our people to just stand there and watch. Real nice.

Sounds like something the French would do. Seriously, a policy like that is just outright amoral, inhumane, and un-American. This woman must not be our president.

CP on March 15, 2007 at 11:45 AM

“My dear McClellan Clinton: If you don’t want to use the Army I should like to borrow it for a while.” – Abraham Lincoln

Limerick on March 15, 2007 at 11:48 AM

Hildebeast, in NYTimes “Interview” …

“Thousands of people are dying every month in Iraq. Our presence there is not stopping it. And there is no potential opportunity I can imagine where it could. This is an Iraqi problem — we cannot save the Iraqis from themselves. If we had a different attitude going in there, if we had stopped the looting immediately, if we had asserted our authority — you can go down the lines, if, if, if.”

I’ll finish it for you ….

If only my husband had been paying attention to the ever growing terrorist threat and did something to show we would not tolerate the attacking of American interests abroad, instead of unzipping for underaged interns in the Oval Office.

If only my husband and his wimpy NSC advisor had authorized taking out Bin Laden when we had him in our sights.

If only my husband had worried less about reading OBL his Miranda rights and more about taking out terorist cells with overwhelming firepower.

People in glass houses ……

fogw on March 15, 2007 at 11:56 AM

blockquote>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.

So you use Darfur as your example to make this broad generalization. I’ll use Walter Reed as my example to make this equally broad one:

Most liberals conservatives don’t actually care about human rights the troops; they care about posturing about human rights the troops to make themselves look sensitive and caring tough on terror. Once they’ve done their 5-minutes daily compassion routine blog-bitch-session and liberal traitor routine,it’s off to Starbucks for a triple latte Wal-Mart for a new fishing rod and some NASCAR tickets.

Wow, this may be the first time I’ve employed the stikeout but I can see why you guys like it, it’s quite fun.

JaHerer22 on March 15, 2007 at 11:58 AM

Not one Democrat I know of has ever expressed regret for the genocides that followed our retreat from Vietnam.

Expressed regret? I’ve never even heard any Democrat admit that the genocides in Vietnam and Cambodia even happened, let alone express regret that they were the direct result of the Democratic Congress’ refusal to honor our treaty obligations with South Vietnam. Democrats have been doing their best to bury that “inconvenient truth” for 30 years. But then–as always–they hate to say anything that might sound critical of their fellow Communists.

As for Hillary’s moral vacuity, well, this is why every terrorist, thug, and tyrant on the planet is rooting for the Democrats these days.

ReubenJCogburn on March 15, 2007 at 12:04 PM

The left that dominates the Democrats today, that cuts and runs from fights in Iraq and on Fox News Channel (and, now, Colbert), is inhuman.

Enrique, you “caring” liberal, you. I thought your side was the compassionate one.

Last night an incredibly intelligent, left-leaning, but sane, friend called and after a while of yakking said “are you preparing yourself for a H. Clinton or Obama presidency?” Very calmly I replied “Neither”. “How so?” she quipped. “Because it will be Fred Thompson”. Folks, the long silence and shock which followed was unbelievable. This peson is not aflicted with BDS and is truly a thinking type.

This is shocking and so typical of the extreme Left, and now, unfortunately, of the Left.

Entelechy on March 15, 2007 at 12:06 PM

Go ahead, make sense of this. I dare ya.

I would, but Coach Green beat me to it.

Kid from Brooklyn on March 15, 2007 at 12:09 PM

Bryan, after examination of the patient, through observation, I am officially diagnosing this as a classic case of:

Doublestanderdous Hypocrisyous

amerpundit on March 15, 2007 at 12:10 PM

I recommend plenty of fluids, and a very long vacation, say until ’09.

amerpundit on March 15, 2007 at 12:11 PM

JaHerer22, we live up, or down, to the brush you painted us with. You, on the other hand, claim to be the compassionate and caring ones. I can never refer to you as ‘progressive’ without quotes, until you stand for human-rights for all in the world. Don’t make me compile lists. It’s an old and long record, and I lived it, for waaaaay too long.

On a very serious note, not one person I know claims that Walter Reed s/b ignored and not addressed; and it is, and should have been, the responsibility of both parties. No excuses on any side, or any function!

Entelechy on March 15, 2007 at 12:13 PM

and should have been, the responsibility of both parties. No excuses on any side, or any function!

Especially since cr@p like that had been going on since the beginning of time, through Rs and Ds.

amerpundit on March 15, 2007 at 12:15 PM

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.

Who says this will be an ethnic cleansing? Does Captain Ed know anything about Islam? Aren’t the Sunnis and Shia both Arabs? If anything, this will be a continuation of the religious war between Sunni and Shia that’s been going on since Ali was caliph. When did religions become ethnicities?

PRCalDude on March 15, 2007 at 12:16 PM

Who says this will be an ethnic cleansing? Does Captain Ed know anything about Islam? Aren’t the Sunnis and Shia both Arabs? If anything, this will be a continuation of the religious war between Sunni and Shia that’s been going on since Ali was caliph. When did religions become ethnicities?

Ok, fine, religious cleansing. That’s better now, isn’t it?

amerpundit on March 15, 2007 at 12:17 PM

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.

Woops.

Who says this will be an ethnic cleansing? Does Captain Ed know anything about Islam? Aren’t the Sunnis and Shia both Arabs? If anything, this will be a continuation of the religious war between Sunni and Shia that’s been going on since Ali was caliph. When did religions become ethnicities?

PRCalDude on March 15, 2007 at 12:17 PM

Sorry if this offends anyone, well actually no I am not sorry if it offends anyone…….

Time to scrub that stain off the Stars and Bars. Can’t be done you say? Sure it can.

Limerick on March 15, 2007 at 12:18 PM

Ok, fine, religious cleansing. That’s better now, isn’t it?

amerpundit on March 15, 2007 at 12:17 PM

It makes all the difference in the world. They’ve been fighting for 1300 years. When they’re not fighting each other, they’re fighting the infidels.

PRCalDude on March 15, 2007 at 12:18 PM

Go ahead, make sense of this. I dare ya.

Man .., is she going to freak when she figures out that Iraq/Sudan are actually connected in the GWOT.

Just goes to show how little she (or the left) understand the stakes.

When asked “what’s Darfur?” she explains that, since 1890, they’ve been committed to preserving American history. And that’s very important.

Wonder if she’s bringing this up due to the TV adds from the Save Darfur folks who are asking Bush to do something (and, in effect, pointing out how the UN is completely unable to follow their charter without major US sponsorship)?

yo on March 15, 2007 at 12:20 PM

PRCalDude,

Yes, but we have an opportunity to stop the religious cleansing in Iraq, and turn it over to all Iraqis.

Will it stop the religious cleansing in all the Middle East? No, but stopping ethnic cleansing in Sudan, won’t stop it all through Africa, either.

amerpundit on March 15, 2007 at 12:21 PM

Darfur is something we should be involved in. It’s Sunni Arab Muslims exterminating Black christians and animists. Big difference than getting in the way of a Sunni/Shia conflict.

PRCalDude on March 15, 2007 at 12:22 PM

PRCalDude,

Yes, but we have an opportunity to stop the religious cleansing in Iraq, and turn it over to all Iraqis.

Will it stop the religious cleansing in all the Middle East? No, but stopping ethnic cleansing in Sudan, won’t stop it all through Africa, either.

amerpundit on March 15, 2007 at 12:21 PM

Don’t you read Jihadwatch?

PRCalDude on March 15, 2007 at 12:23 PM

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 hope the opposition research in the general election (if she gets that far) has made a note of this and smashes her over the head with it time and time again. What an incredibly irresponsible view, and one that pre-emptively undermines her moral authority to take on any policy that involves overseas action by the U.S. military.

thirteen28 on March 15, 2007 at 12:23 PM

Dems always think everything is our responsibility, except our national security and welfare.

amerpundit on March 15, 2007 at 12:23 PM

I’ll ask this again: when did Sunni Arabs and Shia Arabs become two distinct ethnicities?

PRCalDude on March 15, 2007 at 12:25 PM

PRCalDude,

I do, but what does that have to do with the fact that stopping genocide in Sudan, won’t stop genocide all throughout Africa?

amerpundit on March 15, 2007 at 12:25 PM

PRCalDude,

I do, but what does that have to do with the fact that stopping genocide in Sudan, won’t stop genocide all throughout Africa?

amerpundit on March 15, 2007 at 12:25 PM

We share ideological and religous ties with the blacks in Darfur. We have a moral obligation to help them. We don’t have a moral obligation to help people that will kill us as soon as they’ve dealt with their internal squabbles.

PRCalDude on March 15, 2007 at 12:28 PM

I’ll ask this again: when did Sunni Arabs and Shia Arabs become two distinct ethnicities?

PRCalDude on March 15, 2007 at 12:25 PM

The exact minute Mohammed (peanut butter and banana sam’ich) died.

yo on March 15, 2007 at 12:29 PM

The exact minute Mohammed (peanut butter and banana sam’ich) died.

yo on March 15, 2007 at 12:29 PM

Not quite right. Sunnis hold to the Sunnah and believe that only the four ‘rightly guided’ caliphs were valid. The Shia revere Ali. It’s an argument about succession that branched off into two separate religions that both practice jihad against infidels.

PRCalDude on March 15, 2007 at 12:31 PM

It’s an argument about succession that branched off into two separate religions that both practice jihad against infidels.

PRCalDude on March 15, 2007 at 12:31 PM

Yeah. That was the point. And yeah, both practice jihad against the infidels … and once that’s been accomplished, they’ll party like it’s 699 and start going after each other.

If you wanna get a little more into it, a goodly number of Shi’a are actually Persians, not Arabs.

yo on March 15, 2007 at 12:53 PM

Yeah. That was the point. And yeah, both practice jihad against the infidels … and once that’s been accomplished, they’ll party like it’s 699 and start going after each other.

If you wanna get a little more into it, a goodly number of Shi’a are actually Persians, not Arabs.

yo on March 15, 2007 at 12:53 PM

I don’t think you quite have the point. You said that the division started at Mohammed. It did not. It started after his death. The Shia in Iran are Persians. The Shia in Iraq are Arabs. The Sunnis in Iraq are Arabs. Therefore no ethnic cleansing, only Sunni/Shia jihad. Good for infidels.

PRCalDude on March 15, 2007 at 12:58 PM

PRCalDude on March 15, 2007 at 12:58 PM

What I said:

The exact minute Mohammed (peanut butter and banana sam’ich) died.

What you said:

It started after his death

Why are you bustin’ my balls on this if we’re saying the same thing?

The Shia in Iraq are Arabs.

Not all of them. Keep in mind, I said a “goodly number.”

Also keep in mind that that current borders don’t always accurate denote ethnic/religious separations.

yo on March 15, 2007 at 1:06 PM

yo on March 15, 2007 at 1:06 PM

Sorry.

Anyways, in this case, many Persians do travel to Iraq for pilgrimages, but the ethnic boundaries are very well defined in this case. Iran is on a plateau separated by mountain ranges from Iraq. If the Sunnis and Shia want to fight one another, let ‘em.

PRCalDude on March 15, 2007 at 1:19 PM

If the Sunnis and Shia want to fight one another, let ‘em.

PRCalDude on March 15, 2007 at 1:19 PM

Philosophically, I’d agree. However, that type of violence will (or has, depending on how you look at it) spill over beyond the Iraq/Iran borders.

And then, what do you do about the victor? Defeating the other side is only step 1 in the ideology.

Oh, and let’s not forget all of that oil they’re sitting on.

yo on March 15, 2007 at 1:35 PM

And then, what do you do about the victor? Defeating the other side is only step 1 in the ideology.

Oh, and let’s not forget all of that oil they’re sitting on.

yo on March 15, 2007 at 1:35 PM

The oil is a problem, I admit. But Britain faced an energy crisis before with coal mines filling up with water. We’d have to develop alternative sources. We’ll never do that without the impetus. A Sunni/Shia war would go on for a long, long time.

PRCalDude on March 15, 2007 at 2:03 PM

and a certain decorum from our side might — I said might — help tone things down on the other side.

Wow, you’re right! The other side side is now being kinder and gentler! (Watch out for those flying pigs!)

rmgraha on March 15, 2007 at 2:18 PM

I would, but Coach Green beat me to it.

Well played, Kid. Well played.

Bryan on March 15, 2007 at 2:34 PM

I ordinarily refrain from calling Hillary Clinton “the Hilldebeast.”

Myself?..I’m jes’ not that inhibited.

I’m still looking for the word, that defines a female cuckold.

franksalterego on March 15, 2007 at 2:48 PM

As long as it isn’t American blood, Dems don’t care. That’s why they want us out of Iraq. Who cares if the Iraqis kill each other, as long as voters aren’t dying.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on March 15, 2007 at 3:02 PM

Vietnam was before my time. I thought from movies and popular culture that we withdrew from there because we lost. Enemy forces were aproaching Saigon just as the last of the Americans was airlifted out!

It turns out this is just about the biggest historical inaccuracy of the 20th century and it seem nobody knows about it. Battles continued after we abandoned our allies to defeat which caused the death of millions.

I think the Democrats were right I see alot of similarities between Vietnam and Iraq.

Resolute on March 15, 2007 at 7:29 PM

I’ll ask this again: when did Sunni Arabs and Shia Arabs become two distinct ethnicities?

PRCalDude on March 15, 2007 at 12:25 PM

I’m not sure it would be ethnic. It was used in this article by the reporters from the NYT article.

By MICHAEL R. GORDON and PATRICK HEALY

csdeven on March 16, 2007 at 8:06 AM

The oil is a problem, I admit. But Britain faced an energy crisis before with coal mines filling up with water. We’d have to develop alternative sources. We’ll never do that without the impetus. A Sunni/Shia war would go on for a long, long time.

PRCalDude on March 15, 2007 at 2:03 PM

We are developing altenative sources because of the pressure from enviromentalists. But that doesn’t happen overnight. Until then we need to ensure cheap plentiful oil for every american citizen because everyone of us are addicted to it.

We went into Iraq to win. The traitorous liberals want to withdrawl and in turn the middle east will descend into absolute unrest, and by default the worlds oil market will be adversely affected. That means upwards of six dollars a gallon that americans will have to shell out for their SUV’s. The increased cost for every product in this country will grow exponetially. And if the liberals think 3000 american deaths in Iraq is terrible, wait until they see how many elderly people will die in this country because they can’t afford heating oil.

No, if we are going to have a don’t give a $hit attitude, it needs to be in Darfur and not Iraq.

csdeven on March 16, 2007 at 8:48 AM

The dirty little secret of all this is, the leftwing Democrat base is perfectly fine with genocides as long as they’re far away.

Let’s not forget Bill Clinton, the UN, and various other lefties both here in the US and around the world turning a blind eye to 800,000+ Rwandans being slaughtered in 1994.

William Teach on March 16, 2007 at 9:20 AM