As he announced welcome new economic sanctions against government-run Sudanese oil companies, President Bush spoke the truth Tuesday in saying that “for too long the people of Darfur have suffered at the hands of a government that is complicit in the bombing, murder and rape of innocent civilians.” He also directed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to push for a tougher response from the United Nations. But it was two years ago this week that Bush labeled the killings in Darfur a genocide. With every day, Bush’s vow that “the United States will not avert our eyes from a crisis that challenges the conscience of the world” sounds more like a hollow promise.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
-
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in. -
Contact us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Pedant on Palin’s record a ‘mixed bag’
- Franklin on Palin’s record a ‘mixed bag’
- Pedant on Palin’s record a ‘mixed bag’
- cosmos_originally on Palin’s record a ‘mixed bag’
- Regular on Palin’s record a ‘mixed bag’
- BlueJay on Palin’s record a ‘mixed bag’
- Pedant on The GOP’s white-bread convention
- Franklin on Palin’s record a ‘mixed bag’
- cosmos_originally on Palin’s record a ‘mixed bag’
- BlueJay on The GOP’s white-bread convention
38 Comments
Bush knows how to let people die. We weren’t getting any oil from Darfur, so why would we care. Besides, Bush thinks with his gut, doesn’t he? I expect the connection between that and his mouth takes about two years.
It seems that GW thinks with his pollsters. As more people in the media and Congress speak out against Darfur, the public begins to become aware of what a horrible situation it is there. Only then does GW actually Do anything to help in there.
It is easy to say it is bad and it is a genocide, but GW’s actions over the past several years as the situation has intensified show the true level of his concerns.
Oh we are suppose to help the people of Darfur who are being killed in this genocide but NOT the people of Iraq. I see
You guys are freakin NUTS!!! You bitch and whine bitch and whine that we are at war, and here you are bitching for not stepping into another dung heap. How about you turn the Bush Bashing machine down JUST long enough to start bitching at the UN for not doing anything?
So instead of whining that we are not the world police and bashing Bush, start turning your attention towards the people that ARE the world police.
Y’all are a one trick pony.
Who is advocating military intervention on Darfur?
::looks around::
I’m not seeing it.
Then what do you propose Tom? What should Bush be doing as opposed to the glorious UN. Why is this Bush’s fault? Are the Americans the ONLY ones that know what’s going on? Of course not. But it sure beats a path for the Bush Bashers doesn’t it???
Sol,
It took Bush two years from Bush recognizing a genocide was occuring to him taking any action on sanctions against Darfur. In that time, full sanctions could have been imposed, full divestiture could have been ordered, and Sudan’s rulers could have found themselves isolated and alone.
He must have needed that extra time to finish that book they interrupted back in ‘01 - you know, “My Pet Goat.”
Sol, you are so right. The libs fault Bush for not working through the U.N. on Iraq. Now he does on Darfur and it’s not enough.
If the U.N. is so great why does it take the U. S. to propose sanctions? What use is this organization?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070530/ap_on_re_af/darfur_britain_1
Yeah. Yup. And Bush is the only one that can do anything about it. The Germans, Russians, French, the FREAKIN UN????
But they aren’t fun to bitch about are they. Nope, nope, nope. Gotta bash Bush and that is the end of your one trick. Good pony. Goooood pony.
One of the most vocal proponents of sanctions against Darfur have come from Brownback. Yep, good ‘ole liberal Brownback.
::eyeroll::
And you’re still into the US. Why aren’t you bitching about the UN and other countries? Not enough fun to poke at them?
No solly, you and your neocon buddies always provide MORE than enough bitching about the UN.
For us to add anymore would be overkill….
And funny, you didnt trust the UN to lead on Iraq, so why would you NOW turn this little quandry over to them?
You repukes switch sides whenever it is convenient. And you have the nerve to call US flip floppers?
On any other thread, you’d be wailing and gnashing teeth about WHY the us even recognizes the filthy UN. Now you want to push us about TRUSTING the UN?
Which is it solly?
Hmmm….let’s see. I don’t live in those other countries, don’t pay taxes there, don’t vote there, don’t work there?
No, that couldn’t be it…
Could it be that the blog posting was about US “leaders” reaction to what’s going on in Darfur?
I think we’re getting closer…
Farmie,
Wasn’t it the leftists bitching that we didn’t use the UN for Iraq? But now that Bush is using the UN and NOTHING IS BEING DONE… huh. A little to slippery for you to get a hold of?
Tom,
Do you know how many of your tax dollars go to fund the UN and their day camps? Seems to me you’d be a little more concerned with that.
As to the thread lead in, just because the author doesn’t view the entire scope of the issue means that neither should the posters? Lead by your nose much?
too*
Sol,
You imagine I give half a rat’s ass about the United Nations. You imagine I give the other half of that rat’s ass about what other nations are doing.
What I *do* care about is what my elected leaders do with the power granted them. I’m pretty damned disappointed with the ones we have now.
Only military action can save Darfur or fix this problem — as long as China continues on its present course.
China doesn’t care about human rights, just take a look at the way China treats Tabet!
China controls most of the oil in this area.
This all boils down to, “Blood for CHINESE oil!”
That’s all well and good, but to put what is a global abomination on Bush’s shoulders is naïve at best. To have so much of our taxes averted to an impotent group as the UN that does nothing. And it would seem that you WOULD give a rat’s hind end about that.
Tom
Perhaps you are not guilty of doing so, I don’t have the time, today, to do the “research” —
However, the “multilateral” or “work through the UN” argument is pretty common among Bush-bashers. The left constantly claims that W is a cowboy who goes it alone without consulting our allies.
Now, when Bush tries to get international support for something, Bush is taking heat for not being a “cowbow” — for not “going alone”???
Face it, you hate Bush! Bush will be wrong, in your eyes, no matter what he does!
“US Government funding of the UNSource: Anonymous posting at web site, August 2003.
The United States gives $13.3 billion tax dollars in direct Foreign Aid annually. The United States is above and beyond the single most generous benefactor of the United Nations, donating $2.4 billion dollars of OUR money, to primarily third-world dictators.
This amount is 25% of the United Nations budget. In addition, the United States also gives another $1.4 billion tax dollars to United Nations’ programs and agencies. The American taxpayers fund more for the United Nations than ALL of the other 177 member nations COMBINED.”
” Click for PDF Version
A UNA-USA Advocacy Agenda 2006 Fact Sheet
UNITED NATIONS FUNDING
FY2007 Budget Request
The Bush administration’s fiscal year 2007 budget request contains $1.26 billion to finance the United States’ assessed share of mandatory dues to 47 international organizations, including the UN and its specialized agencies. Requested amounts for assessed contributions to UN system organizations include the following: $422.7 million for the UN regular budget; $101.4 million for the World Health Organization (WHO); $89.3 million for the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO); $83.1 million for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in addition to $50 million requested for voluntary contributions; $69.5 for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); $63.3 million for the International Labor Organization (ILO); and $33.2 million for UN war crimes tribunals.
The request includes $1.13 billion for UN peacekeeping dues, an amount expected to be well below actual US assessments (see below). The United Nations currently has more than 70,000 troops, police, and military observers serving in 15 peacekeeping missions around the world, including operations in Haiti, Sudan, Congo, Liberia, Ethiopia-Eritrea, and Côte d’Ivoire.
The Administration’s FY07 request also includes $289 million for voluntary contributions to UN programs and other multilateral organizations, including the following: $300 million for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria; $123 million for the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF); $94.5 million for the UN Development Program (UNDP); and $10 million for the UN Democracy Fund (UNDEF). The Administration again failed to request funding for the UN Population Fund (UNFPA). In each of the last four years the Administration has withheld congressionally-appropriated funding for the agency.”
Any decision-making body composed of hundreds of representatives with divergent interests is going to be slow to come to a consensus…and oftentimes the consensus will be a bastardized amalgam of all sorts of ideas. Sure, it’s great if a “fearless leader” can cut through the bureaucratic red tape to get stuff done, but that can and often does alienate those who were not included or consulted in the decision. As it’s currently constructed, the UN is not capable of emergency efforts or rapid response. I dare to say that was never the real purpose….the purpose was to create a forum where the governments of the world “keep talking”.
That being said, I don’t think that this issue has anything to do with being a “liberal” or a “conservative”. When the US has the political self-interest, it can do amazing things…like, for example, the Berlin airlift, the Apollo program, the Manhattan project. However, even in the face of a humanitarian crisis, every government will consider its own interests above those of the victims.
Finally, war should be like a trial…the last option if no other arrangement is possible. Kennedy had as much or more provocation to go to war over the Cuban missile crisis as Bush did with Iraq. In fact, he was being strongly pushed by Gen. Curtis LeMay and other army brass to take the Ruskies on. He thought better of it and kept a back door communication channel open with Kruschev, than God…In Iraq, by way of a metaphor, it appears that we’re going to kill the patient to save him from committing suicide.
Only military action can save Darfur or fix this problem — as long as China continues on its present course.
China doesn’t care about human rights, just take a look at the way China treats Tabet!
China controls most of the oil in this area.
This all boils down to, “Blood for CHINESE oil!”Posted by: Econ101 | May 30, 2007 at 09:15 AM
There it is. China backs the Sudanese government and we don’t want any part of that. Period. We have stretched ourselves so thin that even if military action was warranted we couldn’t do anything about it. If you don’t think that the Chinese and Sudanese don’t recognize this than you are crazy. So yes part of the blame goes to Bush for stretching the military to its breaking point. And yes part of the blame belongs to the rest of the world. But do not kid yourselves…nobody in the world wants to go toe to toe with China.
I will not side one way or another about what to do about Darfur.However, I do have a problem about Bush and the Repubs throwing around aiding the Iraqi people as a reason for going in to Iraq when much worse stuff has been going on in Darfur for several years. Then, only now when there is more media attention and public scrutiny about the situation there, does Bush feel it is something to take an action on.
With limited logistics support the AU and European forces could police the region. I salute Sam Brownback for his efforts to get attention to this.
Sol,
I’m not even going to start down the UN argument. We could spend all day on that alone. The argument here is what our elected leaders in the United States did or didn’t do. Period.
Econ,
When you find posts of me supporting the UN, paste’em in. (Hint: They don’t exist)
Also: Your comments about what you think my opinion of Bush is, and how I evaluate his actions or inactions, are based on…what? Why would you think you get to characterize what I think?
Tom,
OK, then you bash Bush for not going to the UN on Iraq, now you bash him for going to the UN on Darfur…
Sol,
When did I “bash Bush” for not going to the UN on Iraq? Find it, paste it in.
Anyhow, Bush DID go to the UN on Iraq. That doesn’t make it RIGHT.
And I’m not “bashing Bush” for going to the UN on Darfur. I’m criticizing him for not making good decisions over the 6+ years of his administration. His failure to take unilateral action, and cut off the Sundanese money, for two years is what I’m criticizing.
Keep up.
Actually, Bush has no recourse when it comes to fighting China. He has already sold our birthright to China in every form and fashion. Bush and his buddies are only interested in one thing - money. China has us over a barrel and they know it. We have quickly become a debtor nation because of our arrogance and greed.
I don’t think anything Bush says or does will influence many people around the world. After all, not many people even like the guy.
First, let’s look at this whole “You can’t make up your minds on the UN!!!!!!!” argument. How unsuprising that you use a straw-man argument to distract attention away from the real issue. Newsflash! This discussion isn’t about what the UN did/didn’t do. But if it was, the exact same people you see here complaining about Bush’s inaction would be complaining about the UN’s inaction. I know I would be. Just because we “dirty liberals” aren’t distracted by a topic that’s clearly NOT part of the discussion doesn’t mean we automatically are going to gloss over the UN’s faults. Unlike in a high school debate round, in this forum, silence is not compliance.
Next, to Bush’s inaction. There are two branches of government that are at fault here, and they’re not both the executive. Sure, Bush was inactive. So was Congress. Both the legislative and executive failed in this account to adequately represent the interests of their constituents. But maybe our voices aren’t quite loud enough. If you’ll remember just a couple of months ago, some students from East High School convinced our State legislature to divest its pension money from Sudanese interests. It’s really not all that hard to convince the government to see things your way — even high schoolers (who aren’t even technically constituents of the state legislature and won’t be for at least another year) can do it.We can whine and bitch and complain all we want about how Bush didn’t do anything, but did anyone really speak up about it? Do people *still* really know what’s going on. Moreover, do you care enough to *make* the government do something about it?This is not just Bush’s failing. This is a collective failing on all our parts. Advocating something over “the internets” and complaining about inaction after action has occurred doesn’t get anything done.If you want something done, this is your government, too.Go do something about it.
cat
The fact that China owns quite a few US Treasury Bonds makes China LESS likely to want war with the United States.
In the event of hostilities, the United States would repudiate that debt in a heart beat!
The PRESS has ignored Darfur for years. And the United Nations has done nothing as usual. Oh, that’s right, the UN imposed some sanctions and declared Sudan to be bad, very very bad.
The PRESS declares Bush racist for not helping Katrina victims quickly enough, yet it’s the PRESS that has ignored those in Sudan - 400,000 killed since 2003 and 2 million homeless - chased by their own government from their homes and villages.
Ya know, those in Darfur didn’t have hundreds of buses sitting unused in a parking lot - if they had a 5-day warning and the resources Nagin squandered in New Orleans, those in Darfur WOULD have saved themselves by getting outta there!
The primary agenda for the PRESS is to attack Bush. If the PRESS actually CARED about the people in Darfur, the PRESS would have been reporting daily body counts from Darfur for the last 4 YEARS like they have in Iraq.
Oil is not the only motive here. Kosovo didn’t get the attention from the World because of its oil. They had their own holocost going, and Nato acted in their own backyard to save lives. What’s the difference between Kosovo and Darfur?
http://www.savedarfur.org/pages/background
The comments about the press are all fine, well, and good, and even quite true.But it’s certainly not the entire issue. The press, and especially the mainstream media, is not the best place to find out about tragedies and genocides, is it? The press didn’t cover the Holocaust right away, did they? The press didn’t cover Rwanda as soon as the violence occured, did it? For every tragedy we see on the news, days after it has began or happened, or as it’s starting (continuing with the Katrina analogy), there is at least one more that goes uncovered. It’s because media, be it written, verbal, or watched, is a business. The press covers the stories that will make it money.
But really, who has heard of the humanitarian crisis in the Democratic Republic of Congo (Zaire)? What about Uganda? How about the injustices that are perpetrated on the Kashimiri people? The Tibetians? How about the millions of American children who live in poverty?
This story about Darfur really gives a terrible picture of our society — we refuse to see a problem until someone on the TV makes a big stink about it. Unfortunately, the fuss is made a little too late. We rely on the government to make the big decisions for us, and trust that their party affiliation means that they’ll do what we want them to do.
If action is too little, too late, it’s no one’s fault but our own.
Max,
“if they had a 5-day warning and the resources Nagin squandered in New Orleans”
Nagin did NOT have a 5-day warning, and the drivers had already evacuated.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Hurricane_Katrina#Friday.2C_August_26.2C_2005
For years, countless forecasts and warnings were made about what would happen when a hurricane hits New Orleans.
(The same is true about the great quake that WILL destroy San Francisco and/or LA, by the way)
July 2005, Hurricane Cindy follows a track roughly the same as Katrina, but is a much smaller storm. Still, a warning shot, one reasonable person might think.
8/25 NWS and other sites show Hurricane Katrina hitting FL and projected to move NW into the Gulf. (In my insurance business, we start preparing for a New Orleans possibility)
8/26 Hurricane Katrina is forecast by the NWS to hit New Orleans. (My business insurance team is mobilized)
8/29 Hurricane Katrina hits New Orleans.
For several hours even after the storm passes, the levies hold and evacuations, if already in progress, still had time to be completed. How many buses were not used? How many buses were used?
A city in a precarious position like New Orleans, if it had a disaster plan in place, why was it not enacted? How long does it take to evacuate a city? For 2 hours every afternoon in any city in America, millions of people leave the cities to go to their homes in the suburbs. Why was there not at least that amount of urgency to get out of town for a killer storm?
In the developing world:The deaths of 8.4 million children under the age of 5 occur each yearas the result of one or more of the following preventable conditions:respiratory infections, diarrhea, malaria, measles, and malnutrition.-World Health Organization-
A bit off-topic but …
Last night on Charlie Rose (PBS) he interviewed Paul Wolfowitz. It was a great interview in which they discussed Africa a lot. The good things Wolfowitz was actually starting to get done at the bank will hopefully continue.
As I linked a while back former UN ambassador Andy Young (President Carter) also had a lot of good things to say about Wolfowitz.
Sort of sad in a way - both Wolfowitz and Rumsfield seem to have done good at the World Bank after having been such disasters with US foreign policy (Iraq and Vietnam). Too bad they will both be remembered for the bad.