In July 2007 when he was still frantically courting the far left, Barack Obama flatly declared that genocide wouldn’t be a good enough reason to keep American troops in Iraq:
With all the scrubbing and airbrushing that’s been going on at the Obama campaign and its website, the fact that he has flip-flopped on genocide has been sadly overlooked. That’s right – the presumptive Democratic nominee now opposes genocide! According to his website’s new and improved 16 month withdrawal plan:
I for one applaud this flip-flop, although I lament the ongoing straddle. Note carefully how the longtime community organizer is still trying to occupy both sides of the issue. He reserves the right to intervene militarily to interrupt a genocide, but he doesn’t say he will intervene militarily. Which way would President Obama decide? Candidate Obama is unwilling to say. So maybe calling the latest Obama incarnation “anti-genocide” represents a premature celebration. And I’m sure Obama’s not-quite muscular phrasing of “reserving the right to intervene” (with our international partners!) provides little comfort to any nervous Sunnis in Iraq. Still, Obama’s new position is far more responsible than his old one. Which raises an interesting exit question – was he really as indifferent to genocide as he made it seem a year ago?
