Which sparked the McCain campaign to issue a statement:
"Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces," said Obama, "then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now."
The message was fairly explicit: Obama's commitment to stopping future Holocausts is in doubt. Asked for clarification, McCain aide Michael Goldfarb responded:
"Today he says 'never again.' A year ago stopping genocide wasn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces in Iraq. Doesn't that strike you as inconsistent?"
Now, anyone else would say that Goldfarb is being an asshole. After all, Obama was talking about a specific reason people were saying we couldn't leave Iraq for 100 years - the possible genocide. Obama was making a logical argument: if that reasoning is true, then why don't we have troops elsewhere? Proving that the genocide argument is ridiculous.
But I'm standing with the McCain campaign on this one. They obviously understand that we *should* be sending troops into Darfur and the Congo and other areas, like North Korea where mass starvation exists.
In fact, I fully expect Senator McCain, based on his campaign's obvious feelings regarding genocide, that the McCain campaign will announce that they fully support President Clinton's efforts in Bosnia to top the genocide of the Albanians. That, upon taking office in the White House, "President McCain" will order 300,000 troops to the Congo, another 200,000 to Darfur, and another 1,000,000 troops to North Korea in order to stop the killing there.
Obviously, since the McCain campaign believes so strongly in stopping genocide, this is the only logical thing for them to do.
Senator McCain? We're all waiting.