OP-ED, or, Why I shouldn't watch presidential debates

geno·cide
Pronunciation: 'je-n&-"sId
Function: noun: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.


This morning while eating my bowl of GoLean Crunch and flipping through tv channels, I came across the democratic presidential debate that was held a few days ago. Though I am more of a moderate than a democrat, I am very interested in what the democrats are saying about the current political issues, so I was immediately drawn in. I think that I was hoping that I would hear something intelligent from this group of well educated, articulate, leaders, but I was not very impressed and as a result have become even more disenchanted with politics.

There are many things I could discuss in this blog but I wish to focus on a single observation I made while watching the debate, and it involves this guy right here . . .

Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico and the former US Ambassador to the United Nations, known for his efforts to end the genocide in Darfur. Given his background, he was asked the following question:

BLITZER: "What if some of the critics, some of the supporters of this war are right, and a unilateral, quick U.S. withdrawal from Iraq -- and you want troops out by the end of this year -- does lead not only to an increased civil war but to genocide in Iraq? What moral responsibility does the United States have to deal with that scenario?"

Hmmm, you would think that being a former UN Ambassador and proponent of action in Darfur, he would have something to say about the United States' responsibility to end genocide. But, well, here is his answer:

RICHARDSON:"I've spent a lot of time in this region. I was U.N. ambassador; 80 percent of my time was spent on the Iraq issue. I talked to the leaders there, and there is a fundamental difference between my position and the position of my good friends here. I believe that it's a civil war. I believe that there is sectarian conflict already. There is enormous turmoil. Seven Americans died today.
This is what I would do: I would have a resolution, under Article I, to deauthorize the war, to move forward with a timetable -- the end of this calendar year -- no residual --"

Skirt, skirt, skirt

BLITZER: "But what about genocide? What about the possibility of genocide?"

RICHARDSON: "-- no residual forces.

I think there has to be pointed out a difference in our approach. Obviously genocide is something -- in Darfur -- you know I have been involved in that issue. I believe what we need to do there is stop this genocide. What don't we care about --"

Skirt, skirt, skirt

BLITZER: "But what about Iraq, if it were, God forbid, to happen?"

RICHARDSON: "Well, obviously I would keep troops in Kuwait, where they are wanted. I would move them to Afghanistan to fight al Qaeda. But I believe that our troops have become a target. Our troops right now have done a magnificent job. And so what -- the difference between all of us here is this: all of these resolutions, the funding supplemental, appropriation on funding on issues relating to timetables is not working because the president is vetoing."

BLITZER: "All right --"

end scene

And there it is. A perfect example of why genocide happens with little or no intervention from the G8 and the UN., why the genocide in Sudan continues on. Politicians want to get elected and they are not going to elected by swearing that they will be dedicated to preventing genocide wherever it should occur.

Genocide can not be called genocide until hundreds of thousands have been killed, therefore, those troops that Richardson proposes to place in Kuwait will not be put into action until thousands are dead. That is, if the government decides to intervene at all. So far, they have done little to intervene in the Darfur case, even though Colin Powell has declared it genocide.

Richardson knew that there was no easy answer to the question that was given to him, so he avoided answering it. The democrats do not want to hear that the troops would have to stay in Iraq if we truly wanted to prevent genocide and they do not want to hear that we will send troops back into Iraq if a case of genocide should arise. In the end, they will pull the troops out of Iraq, and in ten years we will act surprised when we hear of atrocities in Iraq.