Our friend Barry raises an excellent point about Barack Obama’s seemingly genocide-friendly comments (even if Mr. Phillips leans a bit too far towards the part of a Bush apologist). Barry is correct in stating that the argument that the prevention of genocide is not a “good enough” reason to stay in Iraq makes little sense. Indeed, it would be quite a challenge to think of a better reason to do anything rather than to prevent genocide.

Let’s remember that Saddam wasn’t too averse to practicing genocide himself, so the concept is not new to the country, but to be fair, this genocide would be different and would certainly have the potential to take place on a far greater scale. Further, seeing as the US had a (*ahem*) hand in destabilizing Iraq, it certainly doesn’t seem right to exit while leaving an expectation of genocide in her wake. It seems then, to this humble observer, that if Senator Obama simply wanted to advocate exiting Iraq, it would make more political sense for him to argue that genocide would not be a likely result of US withdrawal. On the other hand, that argument does seem a bit out of touch with reality, and if Obama tried that, then people might start confusing him with John Edwards.

Perhaps Obama should just call a mulligan on this one, and in the future refrain from making any more comments which could be interpreted as anything other than 100% anti-genocide. It is really not that difficult a position to take.

Comments