1. Deterioration in Iraq.
2. The Democratic takeover.
3. Iran’s rise to regional power.
4. Illegal immigration.
5. The Israeli/Hezbollah war.
CNN’s Obama/Osama gaffe is still in the news so let me seize the opportunity to remind left-wing halfwits who sense the hand of Rove at work that typos occur in news graphics all the time. I catch them regularly on Fox, sad to say. Here’s the latest example. Right-wing conspiracy or overworked copy editor? You make the call.
Update (Bryan): Something about Kirsten’s formulations doesn’t add up. O’R touched on it, but essentially if we all talked about Darfur more, it would lead to an impetus to act, and there’s only one way to stop a genocide: military force. Whether it’s through the UN or not, it takes a military intervention to stop a genocide (unless the targets of the genocide are all dead, anyway, or the genocidal leader decides to call it off). That’s just the way it is.
Connected to that, there were quite a few blogs that were more than willing to talk about Darfur last year, but they were nearly all conservative blogs, and when we brought up Darfur as I did on my old blog a few times we were as likely as not to be accused by liberals of having some hidden agenda unconnected to the actual genocide taking place. Or of wanting to take the focus off Iraq by misdirection to Sudan. That’s what we tricky conservatives do, I guess. And connected to that, the leader in all the world on talking about Darfur was the Bush administration and the villified John Bolton whom the liberals won’t even send back to the UN, but liberals tended to dismiss whatever Bolton and the administration said about Darfur and, as often as not, accused them of having a hidden agenda. And by liberals I don’t mean just bloggers, but elected liberals and major liberal pundits.
Yet Kirsten decries that Darfur didn’t get enough attention last year. Well, she has her liberal allies to thank for that, for the most part, and shouldn’t expect the Reid/Pelosi Congress to do anything at all about Darfur now. They blocked Bolton and have handcuffed Bush. You couldn’t interest them in any intervention in Darfur or anywhere else if you tried. But Kirsten supports them.
But, when given the choice to take out a monster who had committed a genocide or two in his heyday that eclipsed that going on in Darfur, Kirsten didn’t support that war. And yes, stopping Saddam qua Saddam was one of the five or six justifications for going to war. It wasn’t all about the WMDs.
Is there an underlying foreign policy principle I’m missing here, or is liberal foreign policy as situational and ad hoc as Kirsten’s focus on Darfur, but not Iraq, seems to me to be?
I honestly don’t see why Darfur rates more of our attention (when we all know where that leads) but Iraq, the pre-2003 Iraq that might well have had WMDs at the ready and had a history of attacking its neighbors and supporting international terrorists and trying to kill a former US president, didn’t merit intervention. Do liberals only care about a foreign crisis when they know there’s no chance that we’ll actually do something militarily about it? Does the amount of US national interest in a given crisis have an inverse relationship to the interest liberals will show in that crisis? (**Good line I just thought of–Is Darfur the new “Free Tibet?”)
Simple anti-Americanism won’t do for an explanation here, at least not where Kirsten is concerned. I’ve met her. She’s not anti-American, not by a long shot. Maybe anti-Bush, but he’s been the leader on talking up Darfur as a serious problem. And she opposes him and was happy to see him lose Congress, though that loss for him means there is no chance of any action on Darfur. And on and on.