Obama On Genocide

by hilzoy

Michael Goldfarb, writing on John McCain's blog, suggests that Barack Obama has flip-flopped on, um, genocide by contrasting Obama's statement today at Yad Vashem with a quote from a year-old AP article. I wrote about that article at the time, so it seems like a good idea to repost some of what I wrote at the time. First, a fuller quote than Goldfarb presents:

"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.

Obama, a first-term senator from Illinois, said it’s likely there would be increased bloodshed if U.S. forces left Iraq.

“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.”

The greater risk is staying in Iraq, Obama said.

“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."

As I wrote a year ago:

"This is one of those articles that makes me want to call up the author and ask to listen to the original interview. The writer is the one who comes up with the claim that Obama doesn't want to use the military to address humanitarian problems, and that preventing genocide is not a good enough reason to stay in Iraq. What Obama is actually quoted as saying, however, is somewhat different. First, he says that if the mere fact of genocide were a sufficient reason to keep armed forces in a country, we would now have forces in the Congo and Darfur. Second, he says that he wants to keep some troops in the region, just in case. Third, and most importantly, he says that he believes that the risks of "increased bloodshed" would be higher, not lower, if our forces stay in Iraq.

That last point is crucial. Suppose you believed that the best way to reduce the chances of a genocide in Iraq was to withdraw our armed forces. You didn't want to withdraw them precipitously, and you planned to keep some residual forces nearby, perhaps in Kuwait or Kurdistan. Nonetheless, you believed that their presence in Iraq was making the fighting worse, not better. Now suppose that someone asked you whether you thought preventing genocide was a good reason to keep our army in Iraq. Of course not, you'd say. That would only make things worse. That's like asking whether my I care enough about global warming to swap my Prius for a Hummer.

That's how I read Obama's answer, in this interview. And I read the headline over it -- Obama: Don’t stay in Iraq over genocide -- as the equivalent of: Hilzoy: Don't change cars to stop global warming!"

In my original post, I cite a number of sources where you can see for yourselves exactly what Obama's position on genocide is, and what he has done to oppose it, and can therefore decide for yourselves whether Goldfarb has made a telling criticism of a genuine inconsistency, or told a more than usually despicable lie.

Comments

[tgirsch]

a fuller quote than Goldberg presents

Methinks you mean "Goldfarb."

[/Farber]

[hilzoy]

Gack. Thanks.

[Brick Oven Bill]

Hilzoy;

Most politicians are opportunists, but Obama is more willing than most to say anything to anyone if he thinks it will get him more votes. See FISA, Wright, Campaign Finance, 40 days, 16 months, his grandmother, his congregation, and I’m sure I’m missing many others. You should be very, very wary of what men say. We often have self-serving motives. For instance, Obama said http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25795977 ">this only yesterday:

"If, for example, you started seeing a resurgence of ethnic violence that presented the possibility of genocide, I would always reserve the right as commander in chief to intervene,"

The possibility of genocide. I see.

That is a nice white yarmulke he sports these days though. Is he a Jew now?

[Jake]

Michael Goldfarb, writing on John McCain's blog, suggests that Barack Obama has flip-flopped on, um, genocide by contrasting Obama's statement today at Yad Vashem with a quote from a year-old AP article.

Boy they are grasping at straws these days.

[Jake]

Most politicians are opportunists, but Obama is more willing than most to say anything to anyone if he thinks it will get him more votes.

This is complete BS.

[Gary Farber]

"That is a nice white yarmulke he sports these days though. Is he a Jew now?"

You wouldn't know this, because you're ignorant, but it's commonly considered polite for non-Jewish men to don a yarmulke during religious ceremonies of the genetically defective. It's particularly respectful when honoring the dead.

All sorts of people do it.

[Eric Martin]

What Gary said. This gentile has been known to don said cap on more than one occasion, yet conversion just ain't in the good book.

[gwangung]

Most politicians are opportunists, but Obama is more willing than most to say anything to anyone if he thinks it will get him more votes.

You read, but you don't understand. PARTICULARLY about his grandmother.

You're so full of fear and hate. And that's sad.

[Bernard Yomtov]

conversion just ain't in the good book.

I think they can put you under for the circumcision, if that's what's worrying you, but maybe you have other reasons as well.

[Slartibartfast]

Bernard, do you know something about Eric that he hasn't pubicly disclosed?

[Slartibartfast]

publicly, even

[Eric Martin]

I think they can put you under for the circumcision, if that's what's worrying you, but maybe you have other reasons as well.

No sparing of the cutter here. Been there. Done that.

[Yuppers]

Wow, a double entendré and Freudian slip on "public" and an Echo and the Bunnymen reference all in the space of a few entries.

[Eric Martin]

We aim to please.

Good catch by the way. Was wondering if that would be picked up...

[Barbara]

I have always thought that the expression "Never Again!" was more of a way of showing solidarity, as well as an aspirational goal rather than a policy directive. As in, "never again will we pretend genocide is not even happening and not even try to stop it." I have never understood it to mean that we would declare unconditional war every time it appears that genocidal rage is in the offing.

(Also, even with regard to the Holocaust, it has always puzzled me as to what ELSE we might have done once the war started. What else we might have done would have included more and earlier diplomatic actions, like permitting more immigration, and putting greater pressure on Germany early on when it began singling out Jews for adverse treatment. But it isn't like our own laws were so much more liberal on the subject at the time.)

[Phil]

I've worn a yarmulke on several occasions, most notably the weddings of two of my cousins, and my grandmother's funeral, where my father had to speak Hebrew line-by-line, phonetically, while being prompted by the rabbi, as he had not spoken Hebrew since his bar mitzvah in 1958.

Knowing that non-Jews wear yarmulkes when participating in Jewish religious rituals is something that I would think that every educated adult American probably understands.

Which is why what just happened here doesn't surprise me at all.

[Brick Oven Bill]

Sorry I’m not up to snuff Phil. It’s just that I’ve been to a whole bunch of those functions and never been asked. That and the fact that Obama is now getting tough on Iran. It seems to be a policy change.

Obama’s website says:

Obama also introduced a resolution in the Senate declaring that no act of Congress – including Kyl-Lieberman – gives the Bush administration authorization to attack Iran.

Now he’s talking about bombing them.

Who woulda thunk.

[Gary Farber]

"Now he’s talking about bombing them."

I might trust myself to take an action I wouldn't trust you to take, BoB.

Possibly you're different, however, and you extend to me identical trust as you extend to yourself. If so, congratulations on your trusting nature.

[Davebo]

Sorry I’m not up to snuff Phil. It’s just that I’ve been to a whole bunch of those functions and never been asked.

Why do I not find that at all surprising?

[von]

Knowing that non-Jews wear yarmulkes when participating in Jewish religious rituals is something that I would think that every educated adult American probably understands.

I'm pretty sure that's not true. There are many places in the United States where the Jewish population is quite small; I've been to Jewish weddings where no yarmulkes are offered to the quests; and exactly how many non-Jews go to Jewish religious events?

It's not like us goys turn out at Temple for the High Holy days; if we've ever gone to Temple -- and many of us haven't -- it's probably for a Bar or Bat Mitzvah .... when we were what, 13? I can barely remember being 13, much less what I wore on my head.

It's a minor point, but keep in mind that not everyone walks around with your (or my) cultural background. Just because you or me know X, Y, or Z thing doesn't make someone who never came into contact with Z an object of ridicule.

[Gary Farber]

"It's not like us goys turn out at Temple for the High Holy days; if we've ever gone to Temple -- and many of us haven't -- it's probably for a Bar or Bat Mitzvah .... when we were what, 13?"

And if you knew Orthodox Jews, you wouldn't be going to Temple, either. But you probably wouldn't be invited to the Bar Mitzphah, and there wouldn't be a Bat Mitzphah, either.

[Yuppers]

I dunno, von, I went to a wedding in KC years ago and was asked to wear a yarmulke (and did, natch). It's not so foreign a concept -- you don't have to be in NYC, Los Angeles, or Florida to get it.

[Phil]

exactly how many non-Jews go to Jewish religious events?

Are weddings and funerals generally not religious events where you come from? In any case, since this seemed to bother you, insert the words "many" and "often" wherever appropriate until you can suss it out.

Since the question that prompted my (and Gary's and Eric's) response was rather obviously not being asked in good faith in the first place, I felt the proper level of ridicule was being used in answering.

[Gary Farber]

"Since the question that prompted my (and Gary's and Eric's) response was rather obviously not being asked in good faith in the first place,"

I have to note that BoB has become quite the skilled troll, though.

[Bernard Yomtov]

Just because you or me know X, Y, or Z thing doesn't make someone who never came into contact with Z an object of ridicule.

True. OTOH, it's foolish to sneer at someone, not of a particular religion, who chooses to honor one of its customs in a religious setting.

I find myself in church occasionally, for weddings or funerals, and bow my head at appropriate moments. It's not to pretend I'm a Christian, and I wouldn't appreciate being insulted for it.

It's not like us goys

That's "goyim," BTW. Like cherubim and seraphim, for example.

[hilzoy]

Ah, but how many of you can claim, as I can, to have once been (pretty close to) a shabbas goy? (As in: I was hired to do work that no Jew could have done all seven days, but the reason I got to do all the work on shabbat that was visible from the street was not because my employers were orthodox, but because the business was on the border of Mea She'arim.)

[Gary Farber]

Huh. Another cross-posted post. Am I the only one who had no idea that Hilzoy was cross-posting?

Any chance you might let us know when posts are cross-posted, Hilzoy (and anyone else, for that matter)? If so, many thanks!

I thought there seemed to be an odd influx of newbie commenters and drive-bys of late; but it never occurred to me that there would be cross-posts that we weren't told about.

Andrew Sullivan readers might also want to know. I thought it was standard blog practice to always list cross-posting; it never crossed my mind not to label all such posts when I was doing it.

In any case, thanks if you do!

[Brick Oven Bill]

My point, Bernard, is that the man who mocked people who ‘cling to their religion’, is not honoring you by wearing a yarmulke. He is patronizing you.

Either that or he is a deeply confused man.

[russell]

It's a minor point, but keep in mind that not everyone walks around with your (or my) cultural background.

You know, not a day goes by that I'm not grateful for growing up in or near large northeastern cities. The idea that not everyone is like me is something I took in with my mother's milk.

Not everyone has had that advantage, but nothing keeps them from learning that simple lesson, no matter how far along in life they are.

It is not, by any means whatsoever, a minor point, at all.

My point, Bernard, is that the man who mocked people who ‘cling to their religion’, is not honoring you by wearing a yarmulke. He is patronizing you.

Yeah, well, sez you.

Watch out Bill, Obama's gonna sneak in in the middle of the night and steal your potatoes.

Thanks -

[Brick Oven Bill]

Nobody’s going to steal my potatoes Russell. Just a prediction.

[MeDrewNotYou]

Reading http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/23/wexler-mccain-attack-on-o_n_114538.html> this was somewhat revealing, if only because I didn't know Yad Vashem was a Holocaust memorial.

It strikes me as pretty sleazy to say that in response to a speech at a Holocaust memorial.

[novakant]

This is a total non-issue: Yad Vashem is the Holocaust memorial in Israel and many, many foreign dignitaries visiting it have been wearing a yarmulke. Why are we even discussing this?

[Gary Farber]

"My point, Bernard, is that the man who mocked people who ‘cling to their religion’, is not honoring you by wearing a yarmulke. He is patronizing you."

Another fine example of the argument by assertion! Collect them all!

Here's another: "the man who tells you he is patronizing you habitually wears his underwear on the outside of his pants."

Anyone who believes that simply making an assertion is a convincing argument should find either "argument" equally convincing.

Fortunately, I don't think thare are all that many idiots who read ObWi.

"Reading this was somewhat revealing, if only because I didn't know Yad Vashem was a Holocaust memorial."

What did you think it was?

"Either that or he is a deeply confused man."

Obama's hardly made a secret of his religious feelings. BoB, here's a proposition: you're obsessed by Obama -- why not read Faith of Our Fathers, and then come make fun of it? At least you'll be making fun of stuff Obama actually has written and believes, rather than your quasi-neo-Nazi-telephone version.

"Why are we even discussing this?"

We're feeding the troll.

"The idea that not everyone is like me is something I took in with my mother's milk."

After growing up in NYC, when I moved to Seattle at age 19, I was deeply weirded out for quite a while at how, with the exception of a significant Asian population, and a higher population of Native Americans than I was used to, at how -- it seemed to be bizarrely -- monoethnic the town was, and how uniformally pale the people on the buses seemed to be, and how I almost never heard any language but English spoken.

It made me very uneasy, and almost a bit frightened, for a long time, as I kept having the weird feeling there'd been some sort of huge ethnic cleansing, or something, compared to the utter sea of ethnicities and languages and cultures I'd grown up with in Brooklyn and NYC.

It did teach me a lot about what being a minority felt like, though, in a way utterly unlike being Jewish in NYC did.

[Gary Farber]

I shouldn't let pass that this: "My point, Bernard, is that the man who mocked people who ‘cling to their religion’," is a complete lie.

[liberal japonicus]

Gary, you've got the quotes of BOB and MeDrewNotYou (story behind that nick?) together, which seems more than a bit unfair to MeDrew, who has been consistently interesting. More like him(or her) please!

[Gary Farber]

"Gary, you've got the quotes of BOB and MeDrewNotYou (story behind that nick?) together, which seems more than a bit unfair to MeDrew,"

Sorry, how so? Is it an ObWi convention I've not noticed to label whom one is quoting? Heck, half the people here don't even engage in the basic practice of quoting. Is the idea that we should personalize discussion, rather than focus on ideas? Or what?

In any case, I often do make a practice of labeling when I'm quoting a separate person from someone I just quoted, but in this case I absent-mindedly didn't; if MeDrewNotYou is offended, my sincere apologies to MeDrewNotYou. Your taking offense, as you do so many times at me on ostensible behalf of others, LJ, not so much.

[matttbastard]

novokant: This is a total non-issue: Yad Vashem is the Holocaust memorial in Israel and many, many foreign dignitaries visiting it have been wearing a yarmulke. Why are we even discussing this?

Because, despite the continued inexplicable indulgence on the part of management and the regulars, BOB is a troll, one who is very effective at, to paraphrase the posting rules, disrupting and destroying meaningful conversation for its own sake.

Hence the overwhelming majority of comments dealing with the meaningless 'issue' of Obama wearing a kippah, instead of Michael Goldfarb's deliberate mischaracterization of the presumptive Democratic nominee's genocide policy.

[liberal japonicus]

I'm not sure what was in my comment that made it seem that I was taking offense, Gary, just noting that placing one person's comments in the middle of another person's can be confusing and trying to be welcoming to a newbie. I think it is a good habit to acknowledge that you are talking about a different person's words, and recommend it highly, but as for suggesting that it is somehow ObWi convention, I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I felt it was, I don't.

[rea]

Nobody’s going to steal my potatoes Russell.

Potatoes Russell? Yum!

http://recipes.chef2chef.net/recipe-archive/52/276971.shtml

[MeDrewNotYou]

Gary- "What did you think it was?"

To be honest, I'd never heard of the place and thought it was just a religious site. Kinda like the Western Wall, but not nearly as important.

[MeDrewNotYou]

Gary- No offense taken.

LJ- Thanks, but I think you're being generous about me being interesting. The name comes from back in middle school, when there where 3 Andrews in my class. We got together and one stayed Andrew, one got Andy, and I got Drew. Later, in high school, I was hanging out with Andrew and his girlfriend who didn't know about this arrangement. She had always called him Drew, and when I heard it, I kind of grunted out in a caveman-esque way, "Me Drew, not you!"

It stuck after that. ^.^

[von]

I dunno, von, I went to a wedding in KC years ago and was asked to wear a yarmulke (and did, natch). It's not so foreign a concept -- you don't have to be in NYC, Los Angeles, or Florida to get it.

Well, sure: I've been to Jewish weddings where the kippa flow free. As well as the opposite.

Are weddings and funerals generally not religious events where you come from?

Can be, but don't have to.

I don't understand the rest of your comment.

That's "goyim," BTW. Like cherubim and seraphim, for example.

Bit of a nudge, no? (I know it's goyim, but figured "goy" would be more likely understood.)

[Gary Farber]

"Gary- No offense taken."

I must work harder.

;-)

Von: "Well, sure: I've been to Jewish weddings where the kippa flow free. As well as the opposite."

Where the free flows like kippas?

"Bit of a nudge, no?"

Are you trying to say "bit of a noodge, nu"?

:-)

(Sometimes blogs could use editors.)