Obama is not okay with genocide

July 20, 2007

Yesterday, ABC News ran a very misleading report about Barack Obama, sex-ed, and young children. Today, the AP is equally irresponsible, running this headline: “Obama: Don’t stay in Iraq over genocide.”

The far-right quickly went apoplectic, suggesting that the senator is indifferent to genocide. One conservative called Obama an “idiot,” adding, “So Genocide is OK? Intervention – even military – is not an option even when it may save thousands of lives? What of Dafur [sic]?”

The misleading headline certainly led a lot of people to draw the wrong impression, but if one actually reads the article, and considers what Obama actually said, the criticism is entirely misplaced.

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. Those of us who care about Darfur don’t think it would be a good idea,” he said.

It’s not that complicated. Obama wasn’t suggesting genocide is tolerable, and he wasn’t advocating indifference for murder on a grand scale. He was simply making the point that if genocidal attacks alone were the basis for a massive military deployment, we’d have deployed thousands of U.S. troops to central Africa right now. That we haven’t suggests that genocide — or in the case of Iraq, speculative potential for genocide — does not drive U.S. military deployments.

The problem with the story was compounded when it suggested that Obama expects significant bloodshed to accompany a withdrawal.

“Nobody is proposing we leave precipitously. There are still going to be U.S. forces in the region that could intercede, with an international force, on an emergency basis,” Obama said between stops on the first of two days scheduled on the New Hampshire campaign trail. “There’s no doubt there are risks of increased bloodshed in Iraq without a continuing U.S. presence there.”

“See?” conservatives said, “Obama is unconcerned about genocide, and now he’s lackadaisical about Iraqi deaths.”

Except that’s still not what he said. Obama told the AP that the costs associated with a withdrawal are less than those with the status quo.

“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.

So, to wrap up: Obama is not indifferent to genocide, he is not apathetic about Iraqi deaths, the AP’s headline writers need to be more careful, and dozens of prominent conservative bloggers have managed to once again get confused about a series of rather straightforward quotes.

It doesn’t matter what Obama says. It doesn’t matter what any rational person, moderate, or liberal says. The right-wing will take anything out of context, spin it absurdly, draw silly conclusions, and screech and howl endlessly. They are never really held accountable for their behavior. In Obama’s case they’re apt to really get nasty—see, ya gotta keep them there uppity darkies in their place.

  • Obama’s point is valid, but why would he get sucked into making it vis-a-vis genocide instead of say democracy?

    You could make the same point that we can’t bring democracy everywhere by force of arms, as you would by saying we can’t stop genocide everywhere by force of arms. The former is more palatable way to couch the same conclusion.

    “Nobody is proposing we leave precipitously. There are still going to be U.S. forces in the region that could intercede, with an international force, on an emergency basis,”

    I wouldn’t call that a straightforward quote. The whole damn thing is an emergency now. ‘Not leave precipitously?’ That’s political double speak and it makes me question if he would know what the hell to do as president.

    Question- Will Obama be able to keep a few million of those campaign contributions for himself when this thing is over?

  • Seems like the better point to raise would be:

    Who’s more concerned with genocide, a guy who opposed the Iraq war, or its cheerleaders?

  • I actually think we should use our military to combat genocide (which is not what we’re doing in Iraq, by the way) but we haven’t found the right way to do that yet. We shouldn’t use our military to stop genocide where it won’t work, even if there is a need to stop a genocide in some particular place (for example, we shouldn’t try it if the only way we can think of to stop the genocide is to overthrow a regime that sponsors it, but in the process of doing that we’re going to leave the nation vulnerable to unquenchable internicine violence).

    Could be I’m too much of an idealist, still, on this issue, and the troubling circumstances where we’re going to be able to be World Cop in a productive way are like 1 in a 1000. But I don’t think so.

    Rather I think the circumstances where we’ve been best positioned to stop a genocide are those where the enemy has been very weak, but there just wasn’t enough political support for intervening- Haiti, Rwanda, Darfur. Everyone’s heard the horror-story of the European refugees being air-lifted out of Rwanda by the U.N., but the Rwandans left to the slaughter.

    I would find the Bush gang’s humanitarian pretenses much more believable if we were using the military in other situations where it would be far easier to sweep up a bunch of troublemakers instead of this intractable situation. But not only are we not turning a stern eye towards oppressive allies like Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, we are not taking on other tough fights against oppressive powers we are not on good terms with, but don’t have vast oil resources, nor are we making a day trip to swoop down on some murdering thugs to take them to meet oblivion.

    Some make think this is a little arrogant or imperial to say we should just drop in and fight people based on our notions of whether they’re victimizing people- and I would agree that it would be for the best if the UN had an effective mechanism to determine how interventions should take place, quickly investigate what is to be done, and coordinate interventions among other affluent powers in a way that includes real oversight to prevent profiteeting and exploitation- but regardless of those concerns I just don’t see why we can’t just swoop in and help some people who really feel they need some help. Right now brown skin seems to be a big disqualifier for putting white guys’ lives on the line, and it seems to require that they have something else to put on the table (for us to take away from them or pressure them into giving away).

  • “…speculative potential for genocide — does not drive U.S. military deployments”

    Perhaps it does when our policies directly created the environment for the potential genocide?

  • Like I asked previously, Is it too much to ask, especially in these dangerous times that reporters not only get a story straight but that they report it straight as well?

    I mean after all, these are supposed to be “professional” journalists and reporters yet they still use misleading headlines to “sell” the news.

    Remember headlines like “Millions of Americans Go To Bed Hungry Every Night” which ends up being an article about dieting women.

    When will these “newspeople” stop placing sensationalism above responsible reporting? Integrity seems to have gone missing from the MSM and only the blogesphere seems to be calling them on it. They seldom regulate themselves with corrections or apologies, but they should at least redouble efforts to prevent being misleading.

  • sensationalism rules the day. i’ve seen numerous web sites with a “Cheney to be President” or similarly intentionally misleading but sure-to-get-clicked headlines about this weekend’s procedure to search for Dubya’s head. whatever headline it takes to move copy, who cares how inaccurate the impression. yesterday i argued the bad press was Obama’s sloppiness, but this one is on the press. it is beginning to look like they feel they’ve built him up enough that it is time to take him down. See, e.g., Dean, Howard.

  • As is their wont, the MSM just cannot bother to take into context whatever a Dem presidential candidate says, and are instead interested only in traffic-attracting headlines that misrepresent message.

    Yet they do the exact opposite for Rep presidential candidates, as is also their wont.

  • When a charge is so stupid, no politician on the planet would possibly say it, much less one with the risk-adverse, all-things-to-all people variety typically hired by Democratic campaigns, you know it’s bunk. Obviously. The fact that Dem advisors have been so careful and still get nailed with this crap ought to teach them not to fear it. No politician is politically savvy enough to keep people from making shit up about them.

    Getting falsely accused of fluffy nonsense is the price of running as a Democratic candidate. To Obama’s credit, he acts that way, shrugging off each new rediculousness, while still pushing back.

    Edwards seems to sure be in the sites of the elite as well. Someone’s afraid some of that largess might start flowing out of DC instead of in.

  • I’m not sure whether this fits better under this thread – about Obama and the media – or the thread about Sen. Clinton but not the press, but just thought you’d all want to share in the further deterioration in the state of the MSM in the media by learning that WaPo online how has a front-page, top-half story analyzing Clinton showing cleavage.

    Not her fight with the Pentagon. Not her views on Bush’s privilege arguments. Not her reaction regarding FEMA trailers. Her v-neck top.

    I will wake up and it will all have been a terrible dream, right?

  • This is why I favor Obama. Apparently, he drives the right wing and their media whores up a wall. Keep up the good work!

  • If you haven’t noticed, ABC has officially joined the republican noise machine (methinks Disney likes money and power). It’s just a bit less obvious than our friends at Faux. I have noticed a slow but subtle transition. Is it just me?

  • Zeitgeist, the link you provided is the lamest excuse for news I think I’ve ever seen.

  • “…..but if one actually reads the article, and considers what Obama actually said….”

    Excuse me, step back and think about what you’re saying. You’re suggesting that people look for information, think seriously about it, and deal with reality.
    The people for whom this is most important are the people least likely to do it. I won’t hold my breath waiting for sensibility and open-mindedness from the right.

    (And Mattis, remember The Road To 9/11″? ABC became pretty damned obvious a while ago.)

  • I don’t give a shit what he actually said, he’s got to realize sooner than later that nuance is the enemy in primaries, and it’s an even greater enemy in the general should he make it that far.

    The bottom line is that he’s spent the last two days having to explain that he never said sex ed should be taught to kindergarteners, and that genocide is morally repulsive.

    Any time a pol is having to answer an accusation or further explain a nuance, it’s too late. The damage is done, and no matter how hard they try to undo the damage or how right they are in their position, they’ll never be able to undo all the damage.

    The solution is really simple…stop stepping in it and realize that when given a choice, the MSM will always twist words if it means greater profits.

    Always.

    Dammit, when are our dumbasses going to get it? Jesus Christ…will one of them just take a moment and stop being so damned naive? Just a minute or two will be good enough for me….I’m at the point where I’ll take what I can get, however slight it is.

    • Comments are closed.