Obama: Don't Stay in Iraq Over Genocide Jul 20 01:34 PM US/Eastern By PHILIP ELLIOTT Associated Press Writer SUNAPEE, N.H. (AP) - 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. The senator has been a fierce critic of the war in Iraq, speaking out against it even before he was elected to his post in 2004. He was among the senators who tried unsuccessfully earlier this week to force President Bush's hand and begin to limit the role of U.S. forces there. "We have not lost a military battle in Iraq. So when people say if we leave, we will lose, they're asking the wrong question," he said. "We cannot achieve a stable Iraq with a military. We could be fighting there for the next decade." Obama said the answer to Iraq—and other civil conflicts—lies in diplomacy. "When you have civil conflict like this, military efforts and protective forces can play an important role, especially if they're under an international mandate as opposed to simply a U.S. mandate. But you can't solve the underlying problem at the end of a barrel of a gun," he said. "There's got to be a deliberate and constant diplomatic effort to get the various factions to recognize that they are better off arriving at a peaceful resolution of their conflicts." The Republican National Committee accused Obama of changing his position on the war. "Barack Obama can't seem to make up his mind," said Amber Wilkerson, an RNC spokeswoman. "First he says that a quick withdrawal from Iraq would be 'a slap in the face' to the troops, and then he votes to cut funding for our soldiers who are still in harm's way. Americans are looking for principled leadership—not a rookie politician who is pandering to the left wing of his party in an attempt to win an election." Obama, who has expressed reservations about capital punishment but does not oppose it, said he would support the death penalty for Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks. "The first thing I'd support is his capture, which is something this administration has proved incapable of achieving," Obama said. "I would then, as president, order a trial that observed international standards of due process. At that point, do I think that somebody who killed 3,000 Americans qualifies as someone who has perpetrated heinous crimes, and would qualify for the death penalty. Then yes." In response to criticism from Republican Mitt Romney, Obama said the former Massachusetts governor was only trying to "score cheap political points" when he told a Colorado audience that Obama wanted sex education for kindergartners. "All I said was that I support the same laws that exist in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, in which local communities and parents can make decisions to provide children with the information they need to deal with sexual predators," Obama said. Romney on Wednesday targeted Obama for supporting a bill during his term in the Illinois state Senate that would have, among other things, provided age-appropriate sex education for all students. "How much sex education is age appropriate for a 5-year-old? In my mind, zero is the right number," Romney said. Obama said Romney was wrong to take the shot and incorrect on its basis. "We have to deal with a coarsening of the culture and the over- sexualization of our young people. Look, I've got two daughters, 9 and 6 years old," Obama told the AP. "Of course, part of the coarsening of that culture is when politicians try to demagogue issues to score cheap political points." "What we shouldn't do is to try to play a political football with these issues and express them in ways that are honest and truthful," Obama said. "Certainly, what we shouldn't do is engage in hypocrisy." Romney himself once indicated support for similar programs that Obama supports. In 2002, Romney told Planned Parenthood in a questionnaire that he also supported age-appropriate sex education. He checked yes to a question that asked: "Do you support the teaching of responsible, age- appropriate, factually accurate health and sexuality education, including information about both abstinence and contraception, in public schools?" (This version CORRECTS a quotation in the story by using the word 'magnet' instead of 'magnate.')
If genocide is the criteria, why not send force to Darfur? The US army is not the international police force, I know this is a hard concept for some people in this country to understand.
as far as the rest of the article is concerned, I like the way he responds to attacks or questions about his politics. "would you support the death penalty for bin laden", "the first thing I'd support is his capture". that's gold right there.
This is one of the things about Obama that sadly doesn't translate well into the soundbite age. He is discussing the theory and the logic behind the argument in a Socratic-type way, like he has in a law school classroom hundreds of times, and that makes for headlines like "he supports genocide!!!!!" But as the quip about bin laden says he is obviously adapting.
I agree with Obama as long as this is made into an over-reaching policy on foreign relations. If we leave Iraq, and a bloodbath ensues, it will give the terrorism recruiters even more anti-Americanism fodder. If we then stick to our guns and keep our nose out of these little messes, eventually that will all die down. Neutrality doesn't work as a here-and-there strategy well at all. As an over-reaching policy it works great.
this is a false dichotomy. i fully support the use of US troops and firepower to create a buffer zone between darfur and the rest of sudan. that's completely different from "occupying" the country. those of us who care about darfur do think it's a good idea. i thought obama was smart- not so sure now.
Did Barack peak too early? Did he ever peak? Is he anything more than a media creation? Time will tell.
Jorge I wonder if we could get your comments on how the demoncrats are cleaning up in fundraising and quite literally blowing the Republican'ts out of the water. Obama in particular is beating up on everybody, including hilary.
I thought someone who apparently loves money would appreciate this http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=131832&highlight=obama edit: sam was on the same page
I'm curious to know which of the boners in the GOP race Jorge is supporting. Or is he rooting for the apparent frontrunner "none of the above?"
I'm still thinking about it. Thompson and Romney are my leaders in the clubhouse though. I believe both are great leaders who could do great things for the country. I'll tell you this though, can you imagine the visual/audio comparison between Fred Thompson and Hillary in a debate? Fred Thompson, with all his gravitas, height, poise, and sophistication, debating against Hildebeast, with all her angry frustration, little-man syndrome, attempts to sounds like a squeaky-voiced man, and fat thighs? Wow, that's a visual that could sink her campaign on the spot. She'd be humiliated in a head-to-head debate vs Thompson.
Actually he only plays that on TV! I love it though; with all the conservatives crying about family values and good christian morals the front runner for the evangelicals is someone from Hollywood!
He must master the art of soundbites or his campaign has no chance. When these questions come up, people don't want to listen to or read an answer for longer than 10 seconds. It has to be short and something they can remember.
