Posted by
Kevin L. Kitchens on Tuesday, June 05, 2007 8:18:51 AM
One thing that struck me in the DNC debate the other night, was the overwhelming concern for Darfur and the genocide going on there...
Don't get me wrong, I think it's an awful thing and feel that we SHOULD be doing something to prevent it, but it's the democrat hypocrisy that's confused me (though I supposed I should be used to it by now).
As has been proven to all but the ignorant and those with political motives, Iraq has been connected to terrorism, funding and harboring of their agents. What would in any other arena be classified as proof of WMDs having either been there, in process, or present were found countless times -- yet some continue to claim otherwise. Additionally, Saddam impeded the UN inspections over and over and over. In complete violation of UN resolutions both directly for those inspections AND the cease fire terms of the first Gulf War.
Finally, to top it all off, Saddam was in fact practicing genocide on the Kurdish people as well as his own. Many mass graves were found where we expected them to be as well as some we were led to by locals.
So clearly, the liberation of Iraq was justified on so many levels. Including genocide, the pet peeve of even bleeding heartless liberals.
Why then, when the United States should "not be involved in crises that do not affect our nationaly security" would the liberals make calls for us to get involved in the Darfur region, but decry our far more necessary involvement in Iraq?
Could it truly be that the democrats are claiming that Iraqis are less important than Africans? Would they be so racist? Or is it simply politics? Bush got to Iraq first, so darn it we have to kick him over it despite how we really feel.