http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=25750Even in today's extraordinarily polarized political climate, there is one stance regarding international affairs on which all the nation's political camps would presumably agree: Genocide is bad.
Yet American responses both to genocidal assaults on vulnerable groups in recent decades and to current threats of genocide suggest that the new political directions ascendant in Washington, with the Democratic victory in Congressional elections and the rise of the Iraq Study Group, do not bode well for those who are today targeted for mass murder.
---SNIP---
Yet Nasrallah's genocidal intent does not particularly faze some who have won new powers in today's Washington. Michigan Democrat John Dingell, slated to be chairman of the Energy and Commerce committee in the next Congress, stated in a Detroit television interview during this summer's war, "I don't take sides for or against Hezbollah; I don't take sides for or against Israel."
Dingell’s view was not shared by many of his House colleagues. Also during the war, House resolution 921 supporting Israel in its fight against Hezbollah passed by a vote of 410 for, 8 against. But six of the 8 were Democrats, with three - Dingell, John Conyers and Nick Rahall - slated for committee chairmanships in the new Congress.I could only post 4 paragraphs, so there are 4 of them. I suggest you read the article, it's an interesting read. If you are too lazy to read the article, the short version is that neither the US nor the UN gives a shit about genocide and several people in key positions in the US are in the appeasement camp, meaning that they may be willing to offer Israel up as a sacrifical lamb to the Arab Middle East to make them happy with us.
I wonder though if that happens, will there be a backlash here in the US? Will we begin accusing "zionist infiltrators" of having conspired to do all the wrongs that have been done over the last few years?