Likelihood of Success

Ron Coleman’s pretty good blog

“Ever again”

Posted by Ron Coleman on December 27, 2007

This “best of” item from July 2007 was the number-one all-time most popular posting on Likelihood of Success since I started it in March — nearly 8,000 pageviews, the result of a particularly fortuitous Instalanche. Considering the rise of Barack Obama right now, and the deafening silence from candidates such as Obama on the Left regarding Iraq, this post perhaps still has something to say.

James Taranto (and others) got exercised last week over the fact that Barack Obama won’t get exercised over genocide.

It’s a nice political point to score on him, but give him points for honesty. “Never again” is the Big Lie of the second half of the twentieth century. Tonight, on the eve of the 65th anniversary of the deportation of Jews from the Warsaw Ghetto to Treblinka, we must be honest: If we knew then what we know now, about the mass killings, the gas chambers, the sick human experimentation, the crematoria — if we knew it were going on right now …

America, and the rest of the world, would not do a damned thing about it.

Indeed, as the official position of the Left, including its handmaiden the mainstream press, becomes “we would not have agreed to fight in Iraq if Bush had not lied to us about weapons of mass destruction” — however absurd a lie that is; and this is combined with the turning away from events in Darfur, and elsewhere; and it is combined, too, with the essential silence of the “world community” in the face of genocide and mass murder, especially of the despised — the niggers of the world, whether black and Jew or even, if the politics of it is right, Arab — the horrible truth becomes ever more clear:


“We” simply do not care.


8 Responses to ““Ever again””

  1. Ara Rubyan said

    Run that by me again…? The Holocaust is Obama’s fault?

  2. jan said

    Maybe I need to brush up on my reading comprehension, I didn’t see where it said Obama was to blame for the Holocaust…

  3. Ara said

    I can’t get halfway through the lead sentence without colliding with Obama’s name — and its assertion that he doesn’t care about genocide. Accompanying that startling assertion (not backed up at all in the post) is the well-known photograph of a child being herded at gunpoint by Nazi soldiers.

    Now you tell me: what is Ron trying to say?

  4. Ara, don’t make yourself sound like a schmuck. I will spell out the argument really slowly:

    1. Senator Obama says, “I am indifferent to genocide in Iraq, notwithstanding whatever role our country may have in having put the bloodbath into motion. Not a single American life is worth millions of Iraqi lives; they can kill each other till they’re all dead, but we must withdraw now.” That is my characterization of the position he was taking at the height of the unpopularity of the Iraq war.

    2. Short version: “I don’t care about genocide. Not our problem.”

    3. Holocaust — this was genocide.

    4. Holocaust: “I don’t care about genocide. Not our problem.”

    5. Senator Obama was not born at the time of the Holocaust. Also, historians have a fairly good bead on whose fault this was and his name has not come up.

    6. But if he were President of the United States, and were presented with the facts of genocide, logically his argument would be, as it is regarding Iraq, “I don’t care about genocide. Not our problem.”

    7. This is, in fact, the truth not only about Senator Obama, but in theory about almost everyone else who would be in a position to put “American boys” on the line for the lives of people who are not voters. And, besides “in theory,” this included Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

  5. Ara said

    Pretty convoluted Ron — and, to be blunt, a smear job on an honorable man.


  6. Ara said

    On second thought, it’s your blog and you can call it the way you see it.

  7. You could just come out and say you can’t refute my argument, Ara. Which honorable man do you mean, by the way — FDR or Obama?

    Do you really think I’m wrong? Do you think Obama would, if he were President during World War II, send American force to liberate the concentration camps? I believe that just as FDR did not, Obama would not, Ron Paul would not, almost no one would. That’s not a smear. It’s a harsh fact of life. But there is a political point here, yes: In our time, where the challenge was far less than what would have been required to extricate millions of eventual murder victims from the mechanism of genocide, liberals like Obama and the New York Times have said: No effort, no sacrifice, is worth saving the people of Iraq from the cold-blooded murderers in their midst. Not “was the war a good idea?” but, given where we were in the summer of 2007, whether leaving these people to wolves, to put it lightly, was the moral thing to do.

    Thank God they did not carry the day.

    You think the use of the picture is unfair? I think it’s easy to forget what genocide really means. And, after all, as genocide pictures go, this one is pretty tame.

  8. Koiquoe said

    Let see if I follow this line of reasoning correctly.

    George Bush used his debatable education from Yale and Harvard to seek opulence as an oilman, from which he had to be bailed out of one failed enterprise after another. For this level of incompetence, he was eventually rewarded an undeserved major league baseball team due to cronyism to ensure that he attained his undeserved millions, and ultimately, the American presidency.

    Obama, who could have pursued opulence with his earnestly acquired education from Columbia and Harvard, opted instead to work with the poor of Chicago as a community organizer for pittance.

    George Bush, in his benighted wisdom, stupidly started a holocaust in Iraq and destroyed an entire country, not to mention the millions killed and displaced, and the trillions of taxpayer’s dollars squandered by this fiasco.

    And through the mother-of-all-convoluted-logic, Bush becomes the great humanitarian hero, while Obama becomes the villain who loves holocausts for not having a solution to Bush’s catastrophe? I think I am beginning to feel the onset of vertigo from following this logic.

    Incidentally, I feel I have an obligation to rebut these kinds of calumny proffered in the public sphere. Ara may show his obeisance to be permitted to participate on your blog. I feel no similar obligation despite the utter rudeness shown towards me prior.

    Koiquoe, you are a schmuck, and one who is obsessed with George Bush, who is not the topic of this post except in the most attenuated sense. This persistent symptom of BDS, your obnoxious manner, and your description here of the war in Iraq as a “holocaust” indicates an utter lack of moral judgment, combining to make you the first-ever person banned from my blog. And, yes, I’m sure you “don’t care,” so, good; no hard feelings. — RDC

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: