In defense of myself

Today's piece seems to have drawn the ire of a few commentators. Rarely do I ever feel the need to defend my writings, but some of the charges leveled at me go too far.

Paul comes out of the gate firing, taking issue with my line: "It seems never again means never again- until the next time." Paul seems outraged by this, though he failed to actually read the statement. If he had, he would have recognized that I was lamenting this fact, not white washing it. In fact, I suggested that those concerned over the Armenian genocide should focus their energies on Darfur - a genocide occurring at this very moment. It's hardly fair to accuse me of not caring.

Paul ends his thought-provoking comment with the question: "What message are we sending - you can kill your minorities as long as you help us with Iraq?" I never suggested anything of the sort, so Paul's conclusion here is way out of place.

Next up is Pete, who frankly committed blatant libel. He blames "apologists and isolationists" like me for genocides. Pete, you have no idea what my actual foreign policy views are, and they are far from being of the realist school, as you described me. And to call someone an apologist for genocide is simply sickening.

Kat seems to have actually read my column, unlike the two posters before her. This piece is about interest groups and the harm that narrow interests can inflict on America, not the resolution itself.

As I wrote in the piece, the passage of time doesn't excuse past atrocities. But if we're going to have an honest debate about this resolution, it's unfair to call opponents of it apologists and isolationists.