"Snippets" of evidence shows Obama open to genocide in Iraq

A little over a year ago Obama made it clear that genocide was not reason to stay in Iraq.

...

“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.

...

Earlier on January 10, 2007 he said the surge would do the opposite of what it accomplished.



A few days later he said that the military could not accomplish the job it has now accomplished in Iraq.

Jack Tapper of ABC asked the Obama campaign for the earliest statement when he said sending in the troops could make a difference. They provided this story from March 11, 2007 where Obama says:

...

"I don't think there's been any doubt that if we put U.S. troops in that, in the short term, we might see some improvement in certain neighborhoods because the militias are going to fade back into the community. That's one of the characteristics of what we've seen. The problem is that we don't see any change in the underlying dynamic which is Shia militias infiltrating the government, Sunni insurgents continuing the fight, that's the essence of the problem and unless we say that we're going to occupy Iraq indefinitely, we're gonna continue to see problems. I would disagree the bombings and the deaths that have been occurring over the last several weeks, you hadn't seen any real significant difference over what we've seen in the last year."

...

So even when he says the troops could make a difference he says it want be enough. He sticks with the ridiculous Democrat position that the Iraqis will reconcile if we leave them to fight it out. But then only a few months later says that genocide is not a good enough reason to stay. He has since "changed" that position and is now against genocide, suggesting that it would be a reason to send troops back in for our third war with Iraq. He remains as incoherent on the war as most Democrats.