[Wolfstar]

This is Krauthammer at his hard-hitting, well-reasoned best. (I searched all three ways the FR search-engine provides and didn't find the article posted, which was a surprise since there are plenty of sharp-eyed FReepers who are usually quick to post excellent material like this.)

[Wolfstar]

For your ping list if you find the article worthy.

[Support Free Republic]

See that good looking dude on the left? He's got FAR BETTER THINGS to do than conduct Freepathons! Come on, let's get this thing over with.

[Paul Atreides]

Does anyone honestly believe that if, God Forbid, Albore had succeeded in stealing the presidency, and had done exactly as W has done, that any of the Dims or the media would be trying to make his actions into a quagmire?

[Prodigal Son]

Hence the central axiom of left-liberal foreign policy: The use of American force is always wrong, unless deployed in a region of no strategic significance to the United States.

You know, it's good that he puts it so clearly here. I was arguing with a disruptor the other day who more or less stated it exactly that way. This is the way the lefties think. That poster argued that we should intervene in Liberia precisely because we would get nothing out of it. I found this insane. But this author obviously understands the liberals and their mindset.

Good post.

[propertius]

"In terms of brutality, systematic repression, number of killings, relish for torture, sum total of human misery caused, Charles Taylor is a piker next to Saddam Hussein."

Now I'm not necessarily backing the argument for U.S. intervention in Liberia, although there is a case to be made for an international mission. And if the precedent has been set for Western powers to lead forces in their former African spheres of influence, there is perhaps something of an obligation. Britain led the force to Sierra Leone, just like France leads the force in Ivory Coast.

But that is off the point. I take issue with Krauthammer's point above. The indictment of the UN Special Court, backed up by considerable evidence, shows that Taylor was the motivating force of the horribly bloodthirsty war in Sierra Leone. Half a million were killed, more, many of them children, had their arms severed and their tongues chopped off. He's also repsonsible for the deaths of at least 300,000 people in Liberia. Ten percent of the population. He is the only leader I can think off who has, under the literal interpretation of the word, decimated his people. Up to half of his population, 1.5 million people, are refugees. He is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands in Guinea and Ivory Coast. He has personally tortured to death scores of political opponents. Weekly, people are dragged out of prison and into the Executive Mansion, where taylor, surrounded by Zoes (witch doctors), hacks off their ears, legs and genitals, disembowels them, drinks their blood and eventually eats their innards to give him magic protection from his many enemies.

A piker next to Saddam Hussein. Taylor has killed close to one million people. Maybe Saddam was worse, but not much worse. Anyway, comparisons in this case are odious. A monster is a monster is a monster. I'm sorry, Krauthammer should do a bit of research before opening his inkpot.

And before you accuse me of being a namby-pamby lib. I'm not. I backed the war in Iraq 100 percent, mainly for humanitarian reasons. I'd like to see the Americans and the Brits take out a few other bad guys as well...

[KC_Conspirator]

What is it that makes liberals like Dean, preening their humanitarianism, so antiwar in Iraq and so pro-intervention in Liberia?

I'll go one step further - its liberal guilt that motiveates them. Liberals scream rascism at Krauthammer and his likes who are skeptical of intervention in Liberia. They claim they don't want to help "blacks". The reverse is actually true - liberals don't intervene unless its to assuage their idiotic guilt and it is them who is rascist because they want to help those who are black. The only caveat is when there is a democrat in office where all the current caterwauling we see disappears because they are hypocrites as well.

That being said, I am for intervention in Liberia.

[Burkeman1]

No blood for oil, it seems, but blood for Liberia.

I wish the war in Iraq was about oil- that- at least- would be a tangible reason.

[LiteKeeper]

bump

[ricpic]

I would be willing to bet that, at a minimum, 70% of Americans want to have nothing to do with Africa. No treasure down the drain. No soldiers put in harms way.

And yet it's a certainty that we're going in. Some democracy.

[The Wizard]

as always, Charles is on the mark......