| Author |
Message |
    
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12494
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 6:02 pm: | 
|
February 7, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
Helping Bill O'Reilly
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Please, readers, help Bill O'Reilly!
After Mr. O'Reilly denounced me in December as a "left-wing ideologue" (a charge that alarmed me, given his expertise on ideologues), I challenged him to defend traditional values by joining me on a trip to Darfur. I wrote: "You'll have to leave your studio, Bill. You'll encounter pure evil. If you're like me, you'll be scared ... and you'll finally be using your talents for an important cause."
A few days ago, I finally got my answer. Mr. O'Reilly declared in his column: "I do three hours of daily news analysis on TV and radio. There's no way I can go to Africa."
No need to give up so easily, Bill. With a satellite phone, you can do your show from anywhere.
But maybe Mr. O'Reilly's concern is cost, so I thought my readers might want to give him a hand. You can help sponsor a trip by Mr. O'Reilly to Darfur, where he can use his television savvy to thunder against something actually meriting his blustery rage.
If you want to help, send e-mail to sponsorbill@gmail.com or snail mail to me at The Times, and tell me how much you're willing to pay for Mr. O'Reilly's expenses in Darfur. Offers will be anonymous, except maybe to the N.S.A. Don't send money; all I'm looking for is pledges. I'll post updates at nytimes.com/ontheground.
(Note: pledges cannot be earmarked. It is not possible to underwrite only Mr. O'Reilly's outgoing ticket to Darfur without bringing him home as well.)
Sure, this is a desperate measure. But with several hundred thousand people already murdered in Darfur and two million homeless and living in shantytowns, the best hope for those still alive is a strong dose of American outrage.
Worse, all the horrors that we've already seen in Darfur may be remembered only as the prelude. Security in the region is deteriorating, African Union peacekeepers are becoming targets, and the U.N. has warned that if humanitarian agencies are forced out, the death toll may rise to 100,000 per month.
Just as dangerous, the government-supported janjaweed — the brutal militia responsible for the slaughter — is now making regular raids across the border into Chad. There is a growing risk that Chad will collapse into war as well, hugely increasing the death toll and spreading chaos across a much larger region.
Last week, the United Nations agreed to plan for an international force. It will be nice if the force materializes — but even that half-step is probably almost a year away. The solution isn't American ground forces, but a starting point would be American resolve to put genocide at the top of the international agenda. Unfortunately, Mr. Bush barely lets the word "Darfur" past his lips.
The best way for President Bush to honor Coretta Scott King isn't simply to recite platitudes at her funeral today, but to push loudly and forcefully to stop genocide. Was the essential message of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. about the need to be seen at funerals? Or about standing up to injustice, like a genocide in which infants are grabbed from their mothers' arms and tossed onto bonfires?
The reality is that the only way the White House will move on Darfur is if it is flooded with calls from the public — and that will happen only when the genocide is brought home to living rooms around America.
According to the Tyndall Report, which analyzes the content of the evening newscasts of the broadcast networks, their coverage of Darfur actually declined last year. The total for all three networks was 26 minutes in 2004. That wasn't much — but it dropped to just 18 minutes during all of 2005.
ABC's evening news program had 11 minutes about Darfur over the year, NBC's had 5 minutes, and CBS's found genocide worth only 2 minutes of airtime during the course of 2005.
In contrast, the networks gave the Michael Jackson trial in 2005 a total of 84 minutes of coverage. There aren't comparable figures for cable networks like Fox, but Mr. O'Reilly and other cable newscasters pretty much ignored the Darfur catastrophe.
Mr. O'Reilly has a big audience and a knack for stirring outrage. Lately, he (quite properly) galvanized an outcry over a ridiculously light sentence for a sexual predator in Vermont. The upshot was that the sentence was increased. Good stuff!
So imagine the furor Mr. O'Reilly could stir up if he publicized the hundreds of thousands of rapes, murders and mutilations in Darfur. He could save lives on a grand scale.
Join the pledge drive! I'm starting with my own $1,000 pledge to sponsor Mr. O'Reilly's trip. Please help.
***
For more on the exchanges with Mr. O'Reilly, see Mr. Kristof's weblog.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12505
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 11:29 am: |
|
Bush termed the situation in Darfur as genocide. That's accurate. Yet what are we doing about it? Why isn't this a priority for many people?
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5178
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 11:50 am: |
|
Maybe they're not up for another quagmire like Kosovo, Haiti, or countries like that? It's hard to come up with "Darfur" and "vital US interest" in the same sentence and do it credibly.
Democrats aren't into this (and the Congressional Black Caucus notably so) because obviously there's no political upside for them to come to the aid of the Sudanese or bash the president on it. Sharpton even visited the place. They've dropped Haiti off their radar screen.
Why doesn't Kofi get his own coalition of the willing. Lots of firepower out there, right?
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12506
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 11:53 am: |
|
I think you're right. There's no profit in it. And that indicates that we don't really stand for what we believe is right. Our foreign policy is not motivated by principles at all.
|
Mustt_mustt
Citizen
Username: Mustt_mustt
Post Number: 550
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 11:56 am: |
|
Tom,
Because the admin supports the present Sudanese govt despite their complicity in carrying out the genocide and also because Sudan has nothing to offer in terms of natural resources, and lastly, not to forget that it will be a diversion of attention from the "war on terror."
Interestingly, the WH admin was against characterizing the Dafur genocide as a "genocide" as such. One wonders what their geo-political strategies are for that part of the world! |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 724
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 11:58 am: |
|
Tom-
If I do recall, it was Powell who used the "G" word in regards to Dafur a while back but no seemed to listen.
The real question should be what will the UN do about this? This is part of the reason they exist, correct?
-SLK |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5180
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 12:00 pm: |
|
Tom -- I wouldn't say our foreign policy is without principle. You can support the extension of democracy without going to war with every country that opposes it. To some, it's more noble to rescue or free people when it has no benefit to US national interests. I'm not one of those. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12509
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 12:09 pm: |
|
I suppose we could sit around passing the job on to others. But even if we're right, isn't that shirking duty?
cjc, if selfless service is not noble, then what is?
|
J. Crohn
Supporter
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 2372
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 1:56 pm: |
|
Received the other day:
Dear [parents],
I am writing on behalf of Schechter Students Against Slavery in Sudan.
We need your help and it involves a simple phone call.
On February 1st, the United States assumed the presidency of the United Nations Security Council for one month, giving America a unique opportunity to help the people of Darfur by leading the international community to take action.
Specifically, The U.S. now has its opportunity to use its time as head of the Council to take the necessary steps to turn the under-funded and under-equipped African Union peacekeeping force into a much stronger and more capable United nations peacekeeping force.
Please join the National Call-In effort by calling U.S. Mission to the United Nations and asking U.S. Ambassador John Bolton to introduce a Security Council resolution calling for a multi-national intervention in Darfur, in support of the African Union, with a mandate the protect civilians.
The phone number is- 212-415-4050.
Thank you for helping SSASS deliver this important message and helping to speak out for the voiceless of Sudan.
[student], 9th Grade
For more information, please see “Security Council Must Take Action to Protect Civilians in Darfur” at
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/31/sudan12577_txt.htm
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12521
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 2:35 pm: |
|
Thank you, jcrohn. I will call. I ask others to consider doing so, too.
Also, see http://www.savedarfur.org
|
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 727
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 5:12 pm: |
|
Tom-
I suffer from the "1/2 superhero complex" so I am all for going in and saving the day in Dafur.
I am not trying to pass along responsibility, I just wish everyone would stop looking at us to fix everything when the UN is in existence. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12527
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 5:31 pm: |
|
What everyone? I'm an American saying America should do its part. I don't know what outsiders have said, so I have no response to that.
We're talking about genocide here. People are being killed and raped for who they are. They are forced to march hundreds or thousands of miles from their homeland to remain homeless on the bare plains, outside, with no shelter. They have been forced to watch their family members raped and slaughtered. Failing to take action because some third party said something is really looking away from the issue.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5201
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 16, 2006 - 3:40 pm: |
|
This is becoming a sucker's game though. I've read that since 9/11 as a percentage of GDP, our NATO partners have decreased their military spending to something like 1%, while the US has increased to about 3.7%. The rest of the world isn't even trying or making a serious effort to mount a credible capability. That's one reason the 'rapid reaction force' NATO is trying to bring together is so ridiculous. We've created a military welfare state for free nations around the world.
Not saying that that in and of itself is a reason for or against intervening in Darfur. It's just the reality of the situation surrounding international troop deployment. And since these other countries aren't busting serious hump in the Middle East, they are as uncommited as they can be in many ways for intervening in Darfur. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12561
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 16, 2006 - 3:54 pm: |
|
It may not be easy to tell the cause from the effect. Are we increasing military spending because they decreased, or are they decreasing because we increased? If the latter, we could argue that we have created an incentive for them. If someone wants to buy their lunch, who are they to refuse?
Anyway, I wonder if you could get back the question I posed to you. If selfless service to others is not noble, then what is noble?
|
Elgato
Citizen
Username: Elgato
Post Number: 16
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 16, 2006 - 6:58 pm: |
|
SLK, We are part of the UN. It is not an independent body out there...it is made up of member states of which we are one with great influence and should be taking a lead and a stand against genocide wherever it is and to work for world peace. These were the reasons we helped set up the UN in the first place after WWII to ensure that the atrocities that took place never occur again anywhere in the world. We pay, I believe, 25% of the UN dues (rarely on time) out of choice to exert our influence.
CJC, We spend more on military spending than the entire rest of the world combined because our government chooses to. The US has military basis in all regions round the world because it chooses to because it suits our interests in those regions and where our government wishes to meddle, often against the wishes of the population and not always because we are wanted as assumed by the American public. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5202
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 16, 2006 - 9:56 pm: |
|
Being selfless can be noble. You can also be a patsy.
Why don't selfless countries that some get all panicked about the US not being popular with volunteer there armies to save the world? Because they know the same country they thumb their nose at will pull their peanuts out of the fire. Same reason Canada doesn't need to worry about defending itself. It also is much easier if you're internationally worthless in real terms to come to that conclusion. |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 745
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 10:02 am: |
|
I agree CJC.
Elgato-I am fully aware that we are members of the UN, don't remind me. |
Elgato
Citizen
Username: Elgato
Post Number: 17
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 11:21 am: |
|
Yes, but Canada doesn't start wars and meddle in other countries politics to start with like we do. They don't have as many enemies because they don't make them. They did their part when called on in WWII. Plenty of countries are sending peacekeeping troops around the world when called on by the UN and pay their peacekeeping dues on time. Just because these things are not reported in what passes as 'news' in this country doesn't mean it's not happening. In many countries the children's news programmes are more informative than the 'news' here. They are shown pictures of starving children and told the background of world conflicts, geography and politics in more detail than the average American adult. In some cases they actually still have permanent correspondents living in other countries! Their people are actually informed of what's happening other than the daily diet of fluff stories we are fed here. They actually have documentaries on current affairs that last up to an hour long!
Our ignorance of what is going on in the world is partly why we are disliked, along with our superiority complex both moral and economic, both of which are now only illusions and fading memories. We don't help because our government doesn't want to. We don't even provide medical care to our own population so why are we going to provide it to other people in need? |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5205
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 11:35 am: |
|
Fine. So have Canada, France, Germany and Spain save Darfur. They're obviously not busy, and with what little they have in the way of armed forces (unless they don't even have the boats to get people there because...well....we'll just call the US).
Elgato -- what is or isn't in Iraq has nothing to do with Darfur, nor does US policy. People say "Well, Bush has no real allies to help in the war in Iraq." Granting that point, these much-holier-than-thou and certainly holier-than- the-US countries can jolly well bail out Darfur. The oil of Canada and Norway can pay for it. |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1353
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 11:48 am: |
|
Disagreeing with US policy is being holier-than-thou? Maybe--just maybe--these countries know the difficulties of being an occupying power in a country that speaks a different tongue and has vastly different cultural values.
Given the current state of the occupation, they may have been right.
|
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4056
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 11:51 am: |
|
"(unless they don't even have the boats to get people there because...well....we'll just call the US). "
The USS Cole came home on a Norwegian salvage vessel. Our defense logistics train is none too robust. |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5054
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 11:58 am: |
|
"Fine. So have Canada, France, Germany and Spain save Darfur. They're obviously not busy ..."
Canada, France, Germany, and Spain have all sent forces to Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Gulf, to fight the real War on Terror. |
Elgato
Citizen
Username: Elgato
Post Number: 18
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 12:05 pm: |
|
CJC, I didn't say anything about Iraq, but as we all know, our army and the National Guard are over their heads there and those who are surviving are being left there far too long away from home and their families. There does not seem to be any US army to help any other countries,not even our own, as evidenced by Kartrina. There are no US allies worth their salt there except for the UK. The USA cannot maintain it's own war, let alone assist anyone elses.
What I am saying is that most of the world knows this and it's only Americans who have this 'holier than thou' view of themselves and their abilities as saviors of the world when it's totally beyond our capabilities or will and part of the reason for lack of will is the fact that most of the population is not very well informed. The rest of the world is quite well aware of the hole in which the USA is digging itself into and that we are overstretched in manpower and $$s and nor do we have the desire to assist when it's not in our own interest. I quite agree that other countries are not doing enough either but they rarely take the moral high ground that we do. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12584
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 12:11 pm: |
|
I suppose cjc's mention of being a patsy is an implication that helping Darfur is a patsy-ish act. Or at least it could be, under some sort of criteria. I suppose someone helping others with no expecation of a return could be seen as a patsy any time in any situation, but someone who doesn't lift a finger could also be making a mistake.
I consider genocide to be the worst sort of situation, and as someone pointed out, we collectively resolved never to let it happen again, yet we're doing that.
I think we should take two approaches: private donations to organizations that help and pressure on our government. There are plenty of useful links at http://www.savedarfur.org
|
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 752
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 12:50 pm: |
|
I am with cjc, I have no problem with the US helping but what is wrong with everyone else?
The UN could have a force in Dafur on Monday if it really wanted to. But first we have to get them to admit it is a genocide.
-SLK |
mjh
Supporter
Username: Mjh
Post Number: 384
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 12:51 pm: |
|
Tom Reingold:
You're not a patsy. In fact, you're much closer to "noble" than "patsy".
I will follow your advice on Darfur, and pass it on to some others. (I've done it before, but not for awhile.........always "too busy")
Thank you for another fine post! |
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 1543
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 11:13 pm: |
|
Bush Calls For More Muscle In Darfur
U.S. Policy Shifts As Talks Stagnate
ORLANDO, Fla., Feb. 17 --After lengthy discussions with Tom Reingold, President Bush on Friday called for doubling the number of international troops in the war-ravaged Darfur region of Sudan and a bigger role for NATO in the peacekeeping effort.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021701935. html |
John Davenport
Citizen
Username: Jjd
Post Number: 605
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 18, 2006 - 12:28 am: |
|
The problem, Tom, is that the world has no policeman. The United States has neither the right nor the resources to play this role. But the U.N. is far more corrupt, incapable, and illegitimate (given the presence of tyrannies as member states on the Security Council and other major positions). The only possible solution I can see is to organize an expanded version of NATO -- a new League of Democratic Nations. Such an entity would have to have the power to levy money and to raise an armed forces, and to uphold fundamental human rights. It could stop the slaughter and scorched earth in Sudan. It could deal with tyrants like Saddam Hussein better than we have done. It could also be a force in the world to counter the rising threat of Islamic Fundamentalism which, as far as I can see, is now about where Germany was in the late 1920s, and leading us all fast towards World War III. A President with any real vision would be trying to organize such a Democratic League to replace the Security Council as soon as possible. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5207
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 18, 2006 - 9:03 am: |
|
We need a League of Nations that can outlaw war.
Who is NATO? I mean really. Take out the US and what do you have left? Capable Brits and......not much else except countries that speak like they're powerful but aren't. NATO can't even get it's act together for that Rapid Reaction Force. You're right back to the US as 'it' and you can't compel these other countries to ramp up because they're spending most of what they have on themselves (no doubt saving billions in the process through single-payer govt run healthcare I'm sure). |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 769
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 18, 2006 - 8:16 pm: |
|
Nice to hear-SLK
Bush Sees Need to Expand Role of NATO in Sudan
By DAVID E. SANGER
Published: February 18, 2006
ORLANDO, Fla., Feb. 17 — President Bush signaled a new American commitment on Friday to addressing the crisis in Darfur, saying he would support an expanded role by NATO to shore up a failing African peacekeeping mission there.
Mr. Bush also said he favored doubling the number of peacekeepers operating in Darfur under United Nations control, as proposed by the Security Council last month. He discussed Darfur, in western Sudan, as an offshoot of a question about the fate of children in war-ravaged northern Uganda.
"I talked to Kofi Annan about this very subject this week," Mr. Bush said, referring to a meeting with the United Nations secretary general. "But it's going to require, I think, a NATO stewardship, planning, facilitating, organizing, probably double the number of peacekeepers that are there now, in order to start bringing some sense of security. There has to be a consequence for people abusing their fellow citizens."
Administration officials said Mr. Bush's comments reflected discussions between the United States and its allies calling for a broader interim role for NATO in Darfur until a larger, United Nations peacekeeping operation can be established.
Fighting between rebel groups and government-backed militias has destroyed entire villages, killing more than 200,000 and displacing about 2 million people. Both the United States and the United Nations have been criticized for responding too slowly to evidence that the African Union peacekeepers were having little effect.
Evangelical Christians have been particularly outspoken in their calls for a more active American role, and Mr. Bush's remarks, in a question-and-answer session in Tampa, appeared to focus increased attention on the issue.
NATO has played a small logistical role in Sudan thus far, primarily airlifting African troops. Until recently, government officials had said NATO might do more, but all the discussion has been about providing equipment, communications and other logistical support.
After President Bush spoke on Friday, a senior State Department official said the United States proposal continued to be "to strengthen the A.U." until United Nations forces arrive late this year.
While Mr. Bush spoke of "a NATO stewardship," the American officials cautioned that NATO would command only logistical operations, not the African Union troops.
They reiterated that Washington would send no American troops. In Congressional testimony this week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said, "We are prepared to talk with our NATO counterparts about what more we can do to support" the African Union forces "until we can get the U.N. forces" into Darfur.
A Pentagon spokesman, Lt. Col. Joe Carpenter, said in Washington that no decisions had been made on NATO's role, but "NATO could potentially be a significant leader" in United Nations peacekeeping.
Over the last two years, under NATO auspices, the United States has transported tons of supplies and several thousand African Union troops to western Sudan. The United States has also provided $190 million for training and building camps for the soldiers, the Pentagon said.
Mr. Bush's comments on Friday were much more specific than his words at the White House earlier this week when he met with Mr. Annan to discuss Darfur.
An official who described the Oval Office session said Mr. Annan had noted that any new United Nations force would need heavier weapons and far better intelligence units than those provided to the African Union. "That can only come from a few places," the official said, "NATO or the United States."
Mr. Bush acknowledged that the African Union troops had been unable to "bring some sense of security to these poor people that are being herded out of their villages and just terribly mistreated."
"The effort was noble," he said, "but it didn't achieve the objective."
At a NATO meeting last week in Taormina, Sicily, an alliance spokesman, James Appathurai, said the United Nation special representative for Sudan, Jan Pronck, briefed defense ministers on the Security Council debate on Darfur. No decisions were made on expanding the NATO role, he said.
"For the moment NATO is doing what it has been asked to do, and that is to extend our airlift and capacity-building operation," he said.
Over the last year, about 7,000 African Union peacekeepers troops have been stationed in Darfur to monitor and enforce a cease-fire between rebel and government troops. In January, the Security Council began to plan to send peacekeepers to Sudan, which envisions a force of as many as 20,000 operating under a broad mandate.
But United Nations officials have acknowledged that winning commitments from member nations to send that many troops is likely to prove difficult. The United States has stated unequivocally that American combat troops would not be sent there, and other nations have offered similar cautions.
Collecting commitments of troops and deploying them is expected to take up to a year.
In recent days, some members of Congress and others have begun saying they hoped NATO forces could work with the African Union troops until United Nations forces arrive.
"In the interim, let's get NATO involved in this process, because every day you wait, you're going to have more people dying," Senator Sam Brownback, the Kansas Republican, said Thursday in an interview on "The Newshour With Jim Lehrer."
Mr. Bush noted on Friday, as he did last month when asked about Darfur by a student in Kansas, that his Administration was the first to use the word genocide to describe what was happening in Sudan.
"Our country was the first country to call what was taking place a genocide, which matters," he said in front of the audience of about 400 people, who appeared overwhelmingly supportive of Mr. Bush. "Words matter."
Mr. Bush's comments came after he received a briefing on Iraq at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, the headquarters of the United States Central Command and the Special Operations Command.
Reporters were ushered into the briefing room, which had a large map of the Middle East projected on the wall, but Mr. Bush did not comment on Iraq while there, or discuss the focus of the briefing.
Later in the day, in Orlando, at Disney's Contemporary Resort, he did speak about Iraq, at a fund-raiser for the Florida Republican party, raising $3 million. "Isn't it fun watching a government be formed by some of the same people who have just been living under the thumb" of Saddam Hussein? Mr. Bush asked the political contributors.
Joel Brinkley and David S. Cloud contributed reporting from Washington for this article.
|
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10739
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, February 19, 2006 - 8:08 am: |
|
I think the Bush Administration is beginning to get some heat from their base on this. Many of the people being slaughtered are Evangelical Christians if I recall correctly and that is unacceptable to the base.
Interestingly, here on MOL many of the same people who chastise Clinton regularly for not sending troops to Rwanda are now defending the Bush Administration "go slow" policy.
Genocide is genocide, no matter who is in the White House. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page