I know this is last week’s news, and the current headlines are about the spat between Hillary and Obama on talking to foreign dictators, but I didn’t want this one to go by. For those of you who hadn’t seen it, Senator Barack Obama, in commenting about the War on Terror and our involvement in Iraq, stated that he didn’t believe that genocide alone was enough of a reason to use military force to intervene.

Hummm…well that’s freakin’ interesting, isn’t it.

So I guess that means that he thought that going into…, oh, let’s see…

1.) Bosnia
2.) Haiti
3.) Somalia

would have all been bad decisions. Hummm…does that also mean he opposes military intervention in Darfur? What about our involvement w/ the United Nations in East Timor?

I’m by no means a “bleeding heart”, but the United States has got to have some sort of plan as to how it decides what international humanitarian situations it will insert itself into.

A few years back, I took a class titled “Theories of Tyranny” and of course, one of the individuals we studied, along with Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, the Khmer Rouge, was Saddam Hussein. Let’s get this straight…the man is a mass murderer and a genocidal maniac. So what’s the difference between him and, oh, the Sudanese government? Not too-damn much actually. Except maybe the Sean Penn and Steven Spielberg aren’t involved. The fact of the matter is that Hussein committed genocide – consistently & continuously against the Kurds – and then there was the prosecution and execution of his own political enemies.

So Barack Obama – I’d like for you to justify why you’d support us going to Darfur and being involved in *some* humanitarian missions to prevent genocide…but not others. And why YOUR rationale is any more valid or justified than the options that President Bush presented.