As President Obama continues to show his courage-less leadership inability over the genocide taking place in Iraq, many people are wondering why he is so lethargic to responding to the crisis, among many others too.
Recently a 2007 interview surfaced where candidate hopeful Obama stated that the United States should not be using the military to settle humanitarian problems and that a possible genocide in Iraq was not a reason to intervene with the US military.
Since when has the United States not intervened or assisted with humanitarian assistance? Obama’s interview will shed light to why he hasn’t responded with courage to do whats what right, here’s what he said:
“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,”
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.
Then during the 2012 elections Obama said this:
“The Iraqi people will have a strong partner in the United States. Our combat mission is ending, but our commitment to Iraq’s future is not.”