By Ted West
MTW contributing writer

What's your favorite genocide? Darfur? Cambodia? I know the Holocaust would be hard to top, but a silver medal is nothing to be ashamed of…

I've said many, many things over the years in an attempt to accurately characterize leftist reprobates, and I was very proud to be one of the first to say that liberals are far more dangerous to the security of America than Islamic terrorists are, but lately, something has happened that has left me at a loss for ugly adjectives.

As if on cue there happens to be a report on CNN right now about the dire conditions in Darfur and the liberal lament that America hasn't done anything to end the horror. Don't get me wrong, someone should have intervened long ago, but isn't this a prime reason why the United Nations was established? America could almost certainly stop the mayhem, but we're a tad busy in Iraq, that little exercise that everyone approved of back when, but from which one side now wants out, no strings attached.

And that's what's left me in a state of shock. Liberals cannot deny that they voted to authorize force against Iraq so they say they were misled. But even if they were, do they deny that the Iraqi people were being terrorized and killed in manner and numbers similar to Darfur?

So how could it matter why we're there as long as we stopped that? Apparently because liberals have the attention span of a gnat and the spine of a jellyfish. But it's one thing to lack fortitude, and it's another to ignore the consequences of being spineless, even if indifference must be an essential ingredient of cowardice.

Recall how liberals screamed about civilian deaths we were supposedly responsible for in Iraq? What's the number, half a million? I don't know, but it's somewhere between the fictitious number accorded the Serbs in their Kosovo "genocide" and the all too real number tallied in the Rwandan genocide.

The actual number for Iraq doesn't matter anyway since liberals are not only prepared to add to it, they literally don't care what the final tally of dead Iraqis turns out to be. Barry Hussein Obama was short and succinct – he said that the possibility of genocide does not justify keeping troops there.

So let's be very clear. Obama, speaking on behalf of leftists everywhere, is not just unconcerned that Iraqis might die in numbers sufficient to make the current count seem like the good old days, Mr. Obama is even less concerned that we, by our abrupt withdrawal, might be the primary cause of it.

This, of course, is not new. It's a precedent Democrats set in Southeast Asia, and thus Obama is a proud liberal traditionalist. And of course, in liberal history books, there was no gruesome aftermath to our Asian exit.

What's most appalling (and I apologize for not being able to come up with a more fitting adjective) is the sheer callousness. Liberals couldn't possibly have been concerned about those innocent dead Iraqis they lamented, it was all just a tactic, apparently to make George Bush and America look bad. All's fair in love and war, but who turns their backs on depravity as easily as the depraved do?

We often see mass murderers being interviewed on television and they are devoid of remorse. Their eyes show no emotion. If we pull out of Iraq and genocide follows, you'll be able to see the hollow look of a mass murderer firsthand – just look any liberal in the eye.