December 06, 2006

McGovern: An Iraqi Genocide Would Not Be Our Problem

In an interview with Rick and Donna Martinez on North Carolina's Morning News with Jack Boston on News-Talk 680 WPTF, former senator and noted surrenderist George McGovern was interviewed about his new book, Out of Iraq: A Practical Plan for Withdrawal Now.

During the course of the interview, and after McGovern described his desire to see the United States pull completely out of Iraq within six months, Rick Martinez brought up the genocides of Shia and Kurds with weapons of mass destruction after the 1991 Gulf War, and then asked McGovern what we should do if the complete pullout led to a similar wave of genocidal killings.

I'm paraphrasing here, but McGovern's response was something along the lines of "it's not our problem," unless we get some sort of an international mandate to go back in to correct it.

As we are all well aware, the Rwandan Genocide saw between 800,000-1 million Tutsis and moderate Hutus slaughtered over about 100 days in 1994. We are still waiting for McGovern's "international" action in Darfur, a slow-motion genocide that has been on-going since 2003, and which has cost 400,000 lives thus far, with no end in sight. McGovern knows any international action to an Iraqi genocide would be slow or more likely, non-existent.

What McGovern is saying is that he does not care if hundreds of thousands of Iraqis—most likely Sunnis—are slaughtered in Iraq as the result of the immediate U.S. pullout he calls for.

Looking Out

So much for multi-culturalism.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at December 6, 2006 09:39 AM | TrackBack

McGovern's wartime cred really is beyond reproach. He continued flying combat missions even when he's flown his quota of 25.

Aside from that, however, I'm not sure that the term "multiculturalism" applies to this issue. Don't we talk about multiculturalism when we're discussing diversity in our own country?

Posted by: Doc Washboard at December 6, 2006 02:15 PM

Doc, his record in World War II is completely irrelevant to his "not my problem" response to a possible genocide his suggested policy would engender 60 years later.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 6, 2006 02:25 PM

Supposedly we value tolerant, multicultural societies (like Israel) and abhor intolerant, bigoted societies (like virtually every Islamic country on the planet).

And you are certainly right about George having put it all on the line for the USA. Maybe, just maybe, he doesn't believe in the strategy of democratizing Muslim countries and doesn't think that it is worth our young troop's lives or our treasure. Since exterminating Muslims is a hell of a lot easier than civilizing them, somedays I tend to agree. Their only real weapon is our forbearance. Which indicates a sad lack of historical understanding of the USA.

Posted by: iconoclast at December 6, 2006 02:30 PM

Refresh my memory of the 911 Commission report please...

Didn't it say that Osama Bin Laden didn't start trying to kill Americans until December 1992, and that he did so after the US abandoned the 500,000 Iraqis that we had urged to rise up for Democracy...then failed to support as we had promised. Of course, Saddam had them dig their own graves then executed them en masse, but the mass slaughter of Iraqis then wasn't our problem, and it had no effect on Americans-other than helping Osama Bin Laden find that nudge to kick him over from disliking even hating Americans into seeking to kill us en masse. Ahhhhh, who cares. It's Not My Problem-the new internationalism of the left. Gotta love it.

Posted by: Scott Malensek at December 6, 2006 02:50 PM

There's a difference between Sudan and Iraq. There is no US interest to be protected by sacrificing the lives of our military personnel.

Posted by: Bear at December 6, 2006 05:32 PM

Now this is down-right scary if your paraphrasing was correct(and I presume it is), '...unless we get some sort of an international mandate to go back in to correct it.

Yoo-whoo, I‘m back! The Un is not a world governing organization and we definitely don't want them to act as one. Yet, here's meathead!

Jayzuz, this really is getting a bit frightening.

Posted by: Eg at December 6, 2006 05:55 PM

November 28, 2006

I cannot sleep. My seething anger keeps my eyes wide open.

But you are sleeping safely in your home, holding your partner or your child and you know in all probability that you will awake tomorrow. And tomorrow, you will open your eyes, step into your bathroom and you will find running water. You will fix yourself a coffee and you will find electricity, you will open your kitchen cupboard and you will find food.

Then you will get dresse , and you have clothes for winter and if you catch the flu, you can always call up your doctor or run to a hospital. Hey, you can even take flowers to your beloved ones if they happen to fall il,or just check to make sure that the surgery of Uncle Tom was successful. Oh yes, you can afford to do so.

Then you will get into your car, drive merrily or maybe not so merrily to your work place , or go shopping worrying about what to cook for your sweet family, or meet with your friends for a morning cup and rant neurotically about how miserable your life is.

Your day is probably filled with things to do. Most likely you have a job and you know you have an income at the end of the month. And you can give yourself the luxury of planning for your future.

You plan everything don't you? What you will be getting for your kids at Christmas, how many parties you have booked on your agenda , your next vacation trip, your one year plan, your five year plan , when your goverment will be invading another country. You are in fact a great planner.

If you have kids , then you know they are getting an education . You can buy them pads, pencils, drawing books , toys and even take them for a stroll in a park free from Depleted Uranium and you can fly kites and raise your eyes to the sky and not see fire jets hovering above your little head . You can do that. I know you can.

And if you are walking about, you know that no bomb or bullet is going to blow you or blow your loved ones away. You will neither be kidnapped nor abducted never to be seen again.

You feel queasy at the sight of blood . Yes I know that. Even the blood you watch on your TV screen when you get back home safely in the evenings is censored so as not to disturb your sensitivities. You don't see limbs , bowels, and brains blown away, you are really cared for and so protected . And if per chance you come across such scenes, you conveniently zap or ask your kids to run upstairs. You don't want them traumatized . Yes violence is bad for you .
It disturbs your peace of mind . I really sympathize.

And when Saturday or Sunday comes, you go to your worship place, and praise the Lord for being born in the greatest country ever. Yes I know you enjoy your rights and freedoms.

During weekends, you can take time for your leisure, tend your garden , go to a gym, invite your friends, barbecue, go dancing , party. You can have fun . But of course, it is natural, it is written in your constitution "the pursuit of happiness" is just for you, and only for you. I don't need to remind you . You already know it by heart.

And when you are with your friends you can be so very interesting . You can tell them how fucked up the world is , how people can't get along . You will point your finger in our direction and hold us as an example . Oh yes, you know so much . Your press told you all about it.

And when you are done with all of the above, you will go back to sleep in your cozy bed, switch the lights off and snore in total oblivion. All the way to that state you are so familiar with, all the way back into your usual comatose indifferent self.

And we are still here,counting the minutes, the seconds and hoping we will taste life again. A life we had before you and your ilk took it all away.

Iraqi Artist Rafa Nasiri

Posted by: saim at December 6, 2006 06:25 PM

UBL did that because of Iraq. He wasn't even IN Sudan at the time.

Wait a sec...

What is that?

Is that a call for the UN? Did someone actually say, "UN MANDATE"

Hmmm, ok.

Try this one
UN Resolution 1483 passed in late May 03 after Saddam was removed from power and the enemy shifted from large combat formations of Saddam's Army to a ragtag army of 10-30,000 insurgents.

What's it say?

In the preamble and in sections 1-4
THE UN CALLS ON ALL MEMBER STATES to support and defend efforts in Iraq to create a new, sovereign, representative govt.

ie, the UN mandates that the US and Coalition be in Iraq to defend the Iraqi govt.

Typically upon having that pointed out, opponents of the war fall back to the toddler argument tactic of "well you did it first" or "Neocons ignored the UN so why shouldn't we?" And I like to respond that if it was wrong for the neocons to do so, then it's wrong to ignore the UN now, and if it's ok to blow off the UN mandate now, then it was ok for the neocons to invade under UN687 and UN678.

BUT, what do I know? I've only read them. Most haven't, won't, and won't bother. It's the talking points, soundbites, and headlines that form opinions that are fed to the war's opponents anymore. One need only wonder how they'll grasp or reject the ISG report?

Posted by: Scott Malensek at December 6, 2006 06:30 PM

CY, what is the "noted surrenderist" based on?

Posted by: Doc Washboard at December 6, 2006 08:48 PM

McGovern would of course say that an Iraqi genocide would not be our problem because that way, he does not need to consider one inevitable consequence from premature American cut-and-run withdrawal: an Iraqi genocide that would include many beheadings. McGovern's comment is consistent with what he said as to Vietnam. McGovern's position as to Vietnam was then and as to Iraq is now completely immoral.

David Horowitz became disillusioned with his radical Left upbringing and involvements and bagan his journey to being a conservative today in part because of what he saw the Left do after we withdrew from Vietnam in ignoring the deaths and misery theat ensued. Did we not learn then not to take McGovern as our guide?

Posted by: Phil Byler at December 6, 2006 09:02 PM

McGovern's wartime cred really is beyond reproach.

Which makes his ambivalence toward genocide beyond reproach as well in your mind?

So if you want to ignore genocide, just get some vet with "cred" to say it doesn't matter and you can wipe you conscience clean.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 7, 2006 02:38 AM


Want to know why you will never see the UN do a damned thing about Darfur?

The same reason they did not want a damn thing done about Saddam..

It IS all about oil.

China, France, Austria and Canada's OIIIIIIILLLLLL!

Here is a handy visual aid for you.

Now, I am sure you would fully support us going into Sudan and acting UNILATERALLY to stop what is happening in Darfur, just like you and your ilk fully supported the US bombing and invading Yugoslavia.

In 2008.

As long as a Democrat is elected President.

Posted by: Nahanni at December 7, 2006 05:35 AM

What McGovern was saying is that he sees no reason to waste the lives of our precious white youths to save the dusky heathen.

Posted by: sllsam at December 7, 2006 06:43 AM

Purple Avenger, as you know, my post was directed at CY's calling McGovern a "surrenderist."

Posted by: Doc Washboard at December 7, 2006 09:28 AM

What you've forgotten about is McGovern's bloody hands in the plight of the Viet Namese boat people and his do-nothing response to the Khmer Rouge genocide campaign in Cambodia. McGovern is of the Neville Chamberlain school of appeasement and should be permanently consigned to the trash can.

Posted by: Mescalero at December 7, 2006 10:53 PM