As Democrats get more desperate and shrill, they are starting to vocalize the sort of sentiments we've always known that they harbored.
Last week, Barry Hussein Obama said to quote an Associated Press article:
"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."
B.O. then went on to engage is some very faulty logic to justify his comment:
"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…
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.
In other words, a President Obama would pull our troops without a bit of concern for the consequences to the Iraqi people.
OK, I admit that's a bit of an overstatement on my part, to be more precise, Barry-O may have a similar amount of concern for the Iraqis as he does for the people of Darfur for whom such concern is not sufficient to attempt a rescue.
Barama is saying to the Iraqi people, essentially what Flounder was told in Animal House – "You trusted us… you F'd up."
But if that isn't bad enough, John Kerry wouldn't even notice a genocide in much the same way he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971 that the Vietnamese wouldn't know democracy if it bit them in their rice fields.
According to Kerry, the transition from war to peace in Vietnam and surrounding countries was a cake-walk:
"We heard that argument over and over again about the bloodbath that would engulf the entire Southeast Asia, and it didn't happen,"
And you can be sure that at least for Kerry and Obama, it won't happen in Iraq either.
And bear this in mind, these two… what to charitably call them… slimeballs aren't just speaking for themselves. They are likely speaking for a great many liberals…
Including just about every one I've seen right here on Vox, Dox.
The Chicago Tribune article about Kerry also has the Mass. Mess wondering why Republicans want to wait until the September report on Iraq before considering our options. The reason is that Kerry doesn't need no stinkin' report, the jury is rigged, the verdict is in – Democrats are totally invested in losing, and the only way we can lose is to give up… and the sooner we do that, the better it is for the Depravedcats.
I mean, how would it look if there was a genocide coinciding with the '08 election? Sure, Damn Dems wouldn't notice, but the American public just might, and most especially if it happened when Dems pulled the plug on progress.