Darkness

There is a real depression settling over those of us who have long worked to help the beleaguered people of Darfur. Senator Barack Obama was viewed by many of us as the hope for a new America. An America that cared. An America that helped those in need. An America that would put principle above politics. An America that would stand strong against oppression at home and abroad.

I've receive a dozen emails in the last few hours from my friends and allies in the Save Darfur movement. We all hope and pray Barack Obama misspoke. We all hope and pray Barack was misquoted.

Alas, it seems the news reports are correct. His words did speak intelligently about diplomacy and international cooperation.

But those effort by the French and, much more recently the Americans have failed the people of Darfur. The SAVE DARFUR Coalition is now correctly DEMANDING UN INTERVENTION.

Obama certainly didn't help.

So below I'm reprinting the impassioned attack on Obama by (of all people) Scott Malensek over at Flopping Aces. Obama deserves these harsh words and a lot worse.

Wow, say goodbye to the Greatest Generation, and hello to the weakest generation. Senator Obama (D) has echoed the Democrats' view on war: genocide isn't worth fighting against. It's why American troops don't get sent to Sudan. It's why American soldiers don't go to Congo, and it's why Americans should leave Iraq. Apparently President Clinton was right to ignore the machete massacre of millions in Rwanda, and President Roosevelt (D) was wrong to wage war against an enemy that never attacked the US, and had no operational or cooperational ties with the Japanese who did. Genocide is permitted and accepted by Democrats. Yep. That's the face of the new Democratic Party. "Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven't done," Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press. "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. Perhaps the "Progressives" (often in love with nuanced reasoning) would only support action against a genocide if it the action were supported and called for by the UN? Nope. Sorry, but that rules out Rwanda, Sudan, Congo, and Iraq. All four had UN resolutions calling for intervention to prevent genocide. Even the Iraq War (referring to the post-Saddam occupation here) is authorized-even compelled-by a series of UN resolutions that essentially demand that the US and others who invaded must stay in Iraq until it is secure and stable enough to stand on its own. Senator Obama either is ignorant of the myriad of UN resolutions that have called for intervention against genocide, or he's taken the same position often accused of President Bush: he's ignoring the will of the international community; thumbing his nose at the UN. Perhaps Senator Obama and others believe that problems which are far away-like genocides in Rwanda, Sudan, Congo, Iraq-are not American problems. They're so far away as to be irrelevant. It's not like they're happening in Mexico or Canada where our completely undefended, unprotected, and ill guarded borders would protect us. History bears them correct, right? The US had no business trying to stabilize a civil war in Lebanon in the 1980's, so US Marines left, and the only effect was to turn Osama Bin Laden from rich playboy to Jihadi bent on holy war with the west-including the US. The US was right in ending support for Afghanistan after the Russians left, and the ensuing anarchy which brought about the Taliban and Al Queda was their-fault not America's, and people in Afghanistan as well as Holy Warriors everywhere understand that. The US was right in running from anarchy in Somalia as the only effect was to prove Osama and other holy warriors' idea that the US is a paper tiger that will run rather than fight. The US was right not to respond to the USS Cole attack as the only effect was to create an Al Queda recruiting video. Really, one wonders if regressive "progressives" learned anything from World War II, Pearl Harbor, and 911? If genocide isn't worth fighting to end, then is anything, and if deliberately, purposefully letting millions of people be slaughtered in genocides isn't the greatest human sin of omission, then what is greater?

Malensek may be a tad too bombastic and a little too partisan. He wrongly claims Obama is the face of all Democrats. But Obama is dead wrong in his comments and, much worse, he is wrong in his principles.

TECHNORATI TAGS: BARACK OBAMA GENOCIDE DARFUR SUDAN

DIGG THIS

SAVE THIS PAGE TO del.icio.us