Let’s dispense with any of the nonsense that Kerry is spreading about Syria being a war fought to protect civilians. Let’s hear it from Obama’s own mouth back in the day.
Obama: Don’t Stay in Iraq Over Genocide
Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.
“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.”
Of course not. Obama would never take on an Islamist country to stop genocide in the Sudan. Daniel Jonah Goldhagen called him out on it during his Libyan War.
Obama has with words or deeds made it clear: Hosni Mubarak must go. Muammar Qaddafi must go. Osama Bin Laden, of course, had to go. But must Al Bashir go? Not according to Obama.
Mubarak, dictator and brute, was tame compared to Al Bashir. Yet Obama abandoned him, a longtime American ally and stabilizing force in the Middle East, in a blink of an eye after protestors, composing a small percentage of Egypt’s populace, occupied Cairo’s Tahrir Square and insisted on his ouster.
Qaddafi, said by Obama to be readying mass murder because of the threatening phrase “rivers of blood” that Qaddafi’s son uttered, though the Libyan strongman had not actually committed mass murder against those recently protesting his dictatorship—certainly on nothing approaching a genocidal, Al Bashirian scale—was declared by Obama to have “lost legitimacy to rule.”
Quickly, the U.S. and NATO began waging a now three-month-old war against Qaddafi and in support of inchoate rebels, representing no one knows exactly whom, seeking no one knows exactly what, except to get rid of Qaddafi.
Obama, self-styled champion of protecting the innocent, has passively stood by since he took office while Al Bashir continued his eliminationist and murderous assault on the people of Darfur, in what has been aptly called an ongoing genocide by attrition.
To the Sudanese of the Nuba Mountains in South Kordofan, of Southern Sudan, and of Darfur, Al Bashir is Hitler; and, like Hitler, he uses mass elimination and murder as a reflexive instrument of policy. But Obama has not unequivocally denounced the Hitlerian mass murderer Al Bashir. Obama, a generally outspoken devotee of international legality, has in effect not supported the International Criminal Court’s indictment, arrest warrant, or attempt to try Al Bashir for mass murder.
Obama, the orator, has not resoundingly declared that Al Bashir has no legitimacy to rule, or publicly warned, let alone threatened, Al Bashir of any serious consequences for further renewing his mass elimination and murdering.
Instead, Obama and his administration have repeatedly soft-pedaled, negotiated with, even effectively lent support to Al Bashir and his totalitarian regime. By their actions and (mostly) inaction, Obama and his administration have helped set the stage for Al Bashir to commit this new assault on the largely defenseless people of the Nuba Mountains and of the South, including the Abyei region.
Forget about threats of American or NATO airstrikes: Obama’s special envoy to Sudan, Princeton Lyman, just explained to Time—and therefore to Al Bashir—that the United States is not contemplating any serious intervention in Sudan even if the eliminationist assault intensifies.
Any humanitarian excuses that Obama gives for his illegal war in Syria are lies. They have no substance whatsoever.
Obama does not intervene to stop genocide. He has proven it by his words, openly saying it, and by his inaction. Obama only intervenes militarily in support of Islamist takeovers.