Humanitarian reasons to intervene

To the editor:

Did David Limbaugh really say that he was worried that, as president, Barack Obama would "intervene in foreign conflicts solely for humanitarian reasons when our national interests are not at stake"? Is there a better reason to intervene than for humanitarian reasons? I guess that's why the Bush administration hasn't done more to combat genocide in Darfur, Sudan and other violent assaults against human life and dignity around the globe. Sorry, folks. It's just not in our national interest. And Limbaugh has the gall to question Obama's moral fiber.

JEFFREY W. JERNIGAN, Cape Girardeau