Posted on 07/20/2007 10:47:10 AM PDT by torchthemummy
Okay. A little research. O’Reilly has quoted a Harvard author as saying that Obama wants military intervention in Darfur, and has taken the position that we should have intervened in Rwanda.
But, Obama wants to allow genocide in Iraq. What’s the difference? Could it be the race of the victims? The victims are black in Darfur and Rwanda, but Arab in Iraq. Is Obama a racist? He belongs to a church with racist tenets.
Ah yes Wilsonian adventurism, the battle cry of interventionists everywhere. Those reasons shouldn't have been included as it's none of our business to liberate anyone from their own internal government
He really didn’t say that... Read his comments. I don’t like his views, but this is not correct.
If Barack was a White Republican he would be the butt of jokes about how he’s no Dan Quayle.
You have a point.
You should preface that with “in my opinion.”
Why? Your argument is the nonsense that kicked off US involvement in the war to end all wars and flies in the face of the advice of the Framers. It's not my fault if Republicans have picked it up to run with trying to spin it into a conservative mantra at the same time.
Defense, yes. Wilsonian adventurism and 'sharing democracy', no.
Name calling is the last resort of those that have no argument.
Barack Obama and Sam Brownback
December 27, 2005;
“Nobody is proposing we leave precipitously.” This is a flat out lie. Close to if not more than half his party is calling for a full withdrawal. As for the rest, they are calling for partial withdrawal in 120 days, though they refuse to specify how many exactly will be pulled.
“We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven’t done. Those of us who care about Darfur don’t think it would be a good idea,” he said. How much can you care about a place and people if you’re willing to sit back and watch them die. I suppose those who sat on the sidelines during WWII really cared about the millions of Jews et al who were killed.
Imagine a friend saying that, I really care about you getting slaughtered right now, but I’m not going to do anything about it. With “friends” like Dems....
The greater risk is staying in Iraq, Obama said...”It is my assessment that those risks are even greater if we continue to occupy Iraq and serve as a magnet for not only terrorist activity but also irresponsible behavior by Iraqi factions,” he said. Thanks General know-nothing, but the people who are actually over there and intelligence estimates say otherwise. Say, how did that Somalia withdrawal serve us?
“We have not lost a military battle in Iraq.” At least he gets that. He should tell his buddies like “the war is lost” Reidtard
“Obama said the answer to Iraqand other civil conflictslies in diplomacy.” YEAH! Another Nev Chamberlain candidate. Thank God diplomacy solved the holocaust! Boy did Clinton’s diplomacy thwart that pesky Bosnia conflict. Man, I love how diplomacy fixed Haiti, no boots on the ground there in the 1990s (ooops).
“When you have civil conflict like this, military efforts and protective forces can play an important role, especially if they’re under an international mandate as opposed to simply a U.S. mandate” Umm, the US is under UN mandate in Iraq clueless.
“you can’t solve the underlying problem at the end of a barrel of a gun,” he said. “There’s got to be a deliberate and constant diplomatic effort to get the various factions to recognize that they are better off arriving at a peaceful resolution of their conflicts.” 1) this shows he does not understand this people 2) it shows he’s ignored the history of the Israel-”Palestinian” conflict, and 3) it shows he doesn’t get this simple fact - these people will come to this realization only after an a** kicking, not a conversation over tea.
“The first thing I’d support is his [OBL’s] capture, which is something this administration has proved incapable of achieving,” Thankfully the last administration did such a better job of that! Oooops!
“Certainly, what we shouldn’t do is engage in hypocrisy....Romney himself once indicated support for similar programs that Obama supports” Ummm, the questionnaire didn’t say five year olds, it’s said AGE APPROPRIATE.
Typical lib spinning - lie, distort, ignore historical precedent, and blur the issue.
My response to B. Hussein Obama - if “genocide is not good enough to stay in Iraq, it isn’t good enough reason to GO to Darfur. Don’t bring it up anymore, and find some other way to get the black vote.”
Obama is an idot and unqualifed to be the POTUS...
All Dems are History revisionists... We invaded Iraq to remove the brutal dicatator Saddam Hussein in order to prevent him the capability of state sponsoring terror organizations including Al-Qaida in a post 911 world. So removing him from power was the right thing to do... The mess that ensued due to Al-Qaida and foreign fighter involvement in fomenting sectarian violence is the cause of our initial mission. So lotgic dictates that if by removing our troops causes genocide then the person responsible for making that decision is the one that caused the genocide.... So Obama supports genocide of the Iraqi people!
So much for “the greater good” thingy, huh? That only works on the “poor vs. the evil rich” in America, I guess.
“The people considered “liberals”, on the “left”, are in fact mostly isolationist America-firsters.”
No, not “firsters”. Their beliefs don’t arise from patriotism but hate and the inability to get out of their Vietnam mindset because they have nothing else to identify with.
Further proof that the LSM is "in the bag for the Hag". Headlines that don't quite match the article are not accidental.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.