It’s official, the American political left has abandoned all pretense of morality. 

They are our moral betters, remember?  They stand up for the oppressed and marginalized?  Remember that schtick?  Ummmm, actually they don’t.  It’s not like they had a moral sense before today you understand.  See, that was all just talk and they were hoping you wouldn’t notice, but this throws a much brighter spotlight on things.

Democratic presidential hopeful Brack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there. 

“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.

Now lest ye think this is one more misstep from the famously not-ready-for-prime-time Obama campaign, think again.

But many acknowledged that Iraq could first plunge into vicious sectarian fighting much like the kind of ethnic cleansing that consumed Bosnia a decade ago and is now afflicting Sudan’s Darfur region. Yet they flatly rejected the use of U.S. troops to stop the killing.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s horrendous,” said House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat who has helped lead the drive against the war. “The only hope for the Iraqis is their own damned government, and there’s slim hope for that.”

No, the increasingly official position of the Democratic party regarding the Iraqis is:  Screw them.

(Wait, where have I heard that before?  I guess I was mistaken since I can’t find it on the net.  Moving on…)

Now, to be honest, I can buy this.  Hell, Ace said pretty much the same thing, so I must be on a roll. 

There’s a case to be made here and I am sympathetic to it.  If realpolitik is the way to approach foreign policy, and I think it is, then there is no particular reason for us to be in Iraq at this point.  We gave them their chance and they can’t get it together.  So sorry!  Buh-bye!   Solution?  Same as espoused by one Marine corporal in the case of Somalia,  “Give them better weapons and training and seal the borders.”  Yes, there is a case to be made for not jumping to “just do someting” for every humanitarian crisis that ambles down the pike.

But here’s the point – the Dems have never made that case.  There’s never been a “humanitarian” military action they didn’t like, from Kosovo, Haiti, Somalia and Rwanda to – if they have their way – Darfur.  So why are they against staying on humanitarian grounds now?  Hello?

We should hang our heads in shame over not getting in to Rwanda in time to do anything but now we should get out of Iraq quickly so they can get on with the bloodletting?  Yeah, so that’s intellectually consistent, right?  Today Taranto asks if Obama is making the case for genocide.  The answer is “yes.” 

It’s just more acceptable when he does it.  ‘Cause you know when he does it, it’s tough, smart.

Oh yeah, and nuanced.

For folks who continually bitched and moaned about how GW was a walking non sequitur, it sure would be nice if they wouldn’t morph into the same.  But it’s already too late for that.