What do we have here!?

In a half-hour interview on Tuesday in her Senate office, Mrs. Clinton said the scaled-down American military force that she would maintain would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence — even if it descended into ethnic cleansing.

Juxtaposed:

Adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948.

The Contracting Parties, having considered the declaration made by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its resolution 96 (I) dated 11 December 1946 that genocide is a crime under international law, contrary to the spirit and aims of the United Nations and condemned by the civilized world;

Recognizing that at all periods of history genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity; and

Being convinced that, in order to liberate mankind from such an odious scourge, international co-operation is required;

Hereby agree as hereinafter provided. […]

So… an “internationalist” Democrat is going to order our military forces to stand down and watch a genocide occur, from the sidelines?

Not only is it a ridiculous proposition, wouldn’t that be against the entire spirit of being a signatory to the UN Conventions on Genocide?

Not, granted, that the UN really cares about genocide - just ask any Rwandan or Sudanese you happen to come across. But you’d think, given the strong push among the liberal Hollywood crowd to intervene in Darfur (ultra-liberals always support whatever military intervention we’re not actually engaged in) that Mrs. Clinton would be a bit less candid about her true feelings and, at least, pretend to give a shit.