Maybe it was New York Times correspondent John Burns who, in his Monday appearance on the Charlie Rose Show, put the question of ending the (rough) genocide in Iraq and the matter of U.S. forces retarding it, even ending it by staying and fighting. (See my Spine on Thursday.) And maybe it was in the wind. Barack Obama handled it straightforwardly and candidly. With an un-furrowed brow, I presume. Frankly, I am appalled by what he said, which you can read in an AP dispatch of July 19, headlined in the Times by "Obama: Don't Stay in Iraq Over Genocide." You can't beat that candor. He believes that all civil conflict should (can?) be solved by diplomacy. Good luck. If you can't fight a war over genocide and to stop genocide, what would you fight a war over? Oil? Maybe nothing. I just read the AP article, and I am reeling. Hillary's confused position seems more appealing to me than those of Obama whom, as you know, I have been favoring and favoring strongly for president. Maybe, by tomorrow, he will be re-crafting his position. Maybe not. One corollary of this news is that the people of Darfur shouldn't count on Obama anymore than the innocents of Iraq ... and, believe me, there are millions of innocents in Iraq. But there was one tough remark in his AP interview. He'd support capitol punishment for Osama bin Laden. Big deal. I'd prefer that bin Laden be killed on the spot, like Mussolini and Ceausescu. Remember that Mme. Albright fretted that the commander of Al Qaeda might not have been found guilty. Oh, the tribulations of doing simple justice.