We Do Need Military Action: Hillary Clinton Calls It "A Moral Duty" "Under International Law"
By RS Insider Posted in Foreign Affairs | Hillary — Comments (8) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The RS Insider was briefly impressed this morning at some chatter around the Hill. Hillary is on board! She’s recognized the national security and humanitarian interests in Iraq!
In a surprising call for military strength, the RS Insider heard, Hillary Clinton is demanding a “robust mandate to protect civilians”, including the troops necessary to “fully implement that mandate.” "We have," the RS Insider heard Senator Clinton had said, “a moral duty and a responsibility under international law to stand up for the safety of the millions of civilians” who “who remain vulnerable to attack.” So, Hillary Clinton has decided to support the mission in Iraq!
Well, no.
For Senator Clinton and other Democrats, Iraq is a problem for Republicans. Democrats are more interested in protecting their campaigns than in protecting Iraqis. That “moral duty” to protect civilians only applies to Sudan.
But Iraq? Despite conceding that we have “vital national security interests” in Iraq, Hillary Clinton says she would take US troops “off the streets in Baghdad” and would not let them “protect Iraqis from sectarian violence — even if it descended into ethnic cleansing.”
Sudan + violence = send troops, protect civilians!
Iraq + violence + vital national security interests = withdraw!
« So Tell Me, Mr. Immelt, Why Are You Killing American Servicemen? — Comments (30) | In The Event I Haven't Made This Clear . . . — Comments (18) »
We Do Need Military Action: Hillary Clinton Calls It "A Moral Duty" "Under International Law" 8 Comments (0 topical, 8 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
That includes Hillary naturally. This opportunism casts aside the anguished complaints about our over extended military. Hillary doesn't lose a wink at night over what's happening in Sudan. Now if the Sudanese could vote in our elections, ah that would be a different story.
I better not give the Democrats any ideas.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
besides, you can't really exepect it from children.
The fact that Hillary!(tm) has provided any rationale for staying in Iraq is significant.
Apparently the "Out Of Iraq NOW!" dam on the Dem side has burst. Hillary!!'s(tm) pronouncement on this will start to provide cover for other Dems to jump off the Murtha-Pelosi-Durbin-Reid sinking ship.
The more's the better, I say.
If the dems start backpedaling in such a bold fashion, it will (or should) be seen as the blatant pandering that is so obvious to us; unfortunately, the Kool-aid drinkers on the left will find ways to excuse it.
Back when the end of major military operations occurred, pundits were pointing out that as a conquering nation, the USA had certain obligations under the Geneva conventions to Iraq.
I believe these obligations of the international treaty bind us to a reponsibility to provide support for the functions of government required by the Iraqi people and to protect the Iraqi nation from civil strife and foreign interference for as long as they desire, or need. Failing to do so would be considered a war crime. Democrat fantasy speak not withstanding, leaving Iraq would make the US leaders subject to war crimes and responsibile for any failures that occur in Iraq. The question is which leaders?
Our responsibilities under the international accords is one of the two big differences between Vietnam and Iraq (the other being the draft). Since Vietnam wasn't a war, but a form of material aid given to a friendly nation, our leaders couldn't be held responsible for the disaster that occurred when the NVA invaded the south, Laos and Cambodia, with the resulting genocide. (While the world hasn't held the US responsible I hold Edward Moore Kennedy personally responsible for all those deaths, and for the fact that the Philadelphia Italian Market is a completely Asian owned business district)
So my interests are in how the Geneva accords that are so important to the democrats when it serves their purposes applies to the US actions concerning Iraq since we are officially a conquering nation. What liabilities do individual legislators have if they sponsor, vote for and approve funding cuts and military restrictions that interfere with the Presidents ability to discharge our obligations to protect and defend the conquered nation.
Who can bring the cut and run bill sponsors and supporters to justice in the international court?
How can we use international enforcement to challenge, and perhaps influence, the aging and out of control McGovernite left overs that control the democrat party?
Support the Mission - Honor the troops
Exsolvo Orbis Terrarum
She obviously now considers both infidelity and homosexuality moral. In fact, I expect Bill is thrilled that he can now bed the other half of the world population without upsetting his wife.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
She just wants us to stand around and watch?
This is the same-old same-old. To the leftist mind, sending troops when there is no compelling national interest is a way of proving your moral purity. You might recall that back in 2004, Howard ("Jäääär!!!!") Dean and company were jumping up and down and demanding that we send the Marines into Liberia due to some humanitarian fiasco there.
Of course, rather than being "moral purity," this sort of stuff just reflects mind-boggling self-absorption and moral vanity....