Tuesday, May 29, 2007

W vs. the U.N.-Darfur Edition

The far too patient POTUS today took another step to by-pass the increasingly pointless bureaucratic leviathan, the United Nations.

Much like its performances in Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda, North Korea, Iran, Cambodia, Nicaragua and Iraq, the United Nations has chosen to pass on yet another issue of human concern, Darfur. It’s pretty hard to get a consensus to stop large scale atrocities, like genocide. Strange how the Communist Chinese, who are themselves the
architects of a contrived famine that killed somewhere between 15 and 40 or so Chinese, with a few other million opponents of the Chinese version of totalitarian socialism dispatched through less time consuming means, to agree to collective action against the world’s terror and murder regimes, particularly when those are a pain the American derriere.

It’s also strange to hear Democrats like
Joe Biden saying that we should commit military force to an ethnically heterogeneous tribal country to spend “American blood and treasure” in someone else’s civil war, like we did in, say………Iraq? Whatever one think’s of Darfur, and I agree with Biden actually, the civilian atrocities don’t even approach the mass gassing of Kurdish villages, the rape rooms and, of course, Abu Ghrib prison, where thousands were executed for mere dissent during the Saddam years.

Moreover, Saddam did pose on ongoing threat to the United States (unless you can explain the presence of so many Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq before the Allied invasion don’t bother to even try and argue this point) and had been legally engaged in a war against the United Nations since 1991. The Sudanese civil war poses no foreseeable threat to the United States or its allies, at least not in a tangible sense.
Statements like Biden's on Darfur should at least cause some pause before accepting the sincerity of the libs who whine about the insufficient UN sanction of the Allied invasion of Iraq.


Today, W began the slow process of tightening the screws. We’re proud of you today Mr. President!

27 comments:

Darfur now has hope. thanks W for doing the right thing said...

aren't we still in kosovo? isn't that bill clinton's war that was not supposed to last more than 6 months? isn't that the one where we had no UN resolution, we had no imminent threat to US security, no wmd's, we did not have worldwide participation? That war?

I get very confused about how Democrats decide to go to war.

But...regardless. We all agree that something needs done and as per usual, the Americans will deal with the suffering by interfering.

Thank God America exists. We really still are the shining city on the hill.

Anonymous said...

oh yea..and no one from kosovo flew any planes into our buildings and killed 3000 innocent american co-workers.

why did we go to war in kosovo again? I get confused about which human suffering gets a war and which human suffering doesn't.

is there a scale? Rwanda? Somalia? Saddam era Iraq? Bosnians? Sunni's? Shiites? Jews?

RF said...

Please keep bringing up the Kosovo/Iraq comparison. Makes B. Clinton look like a genius and W the biggest loser.

Spotlight (on the facts) said...

Sporer: " so many Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq before the Allied invasion don’t bother to even try and argue this point) "

Pretty hard to win an argument with the 9/11 commission, so we should move on to some other fictional history, right, Sporer?

Anonymous said...

rf - no...it makes Billy Boy look like a wag the dog opportunist. Which is what he is, as is his wife. At least W has some higher purpose reasoning for doing what he thought best to protect america.

What was Bill's motivation for Kosovo? No democrat can answer this question.

How come?

ben affleck should shut up and sing. he's showing his lack of intellectual curiosity said...

Ben Affleck, who tried mightily - but unsuccessfully - to get Sen. John Kerry elected to the White House, said he expects ex-Gov. Mitt Romney to be the Republican nominee in 2008.

Chatting about the upcoming presidential race on the season finale of “Real Time with Bill Maher,” the Cambridge homey said he thinks the GOP will end up with Romney because the ex-gov looks good, has nice hair - and the Republicans really don’t have anyone else.

“He says he doesn’t like abortion and he’s all clean-cut and he looks like a Ken doll,” said Affleck who was doing a rather amusing imitation of our ex-gov during the Romney rant.

“The Mormonism thing is really suspect,” he added, “but they’ll take it at this point. I mean, who else do they have? Crazy (Rudy) Giuliani and (John) McCain who’s completely insane? They don’t have any other options.”

Anonymous said...

rf - please tell us what our national interest was in Kosovo? Tell me who our allies were? Tell us when that nation attacked us first.

Which suffering country deserves a war? Why didn't Bill deal with Rwanda? Why didn't Bill deal with Somalia? Remember Black Hawk Down?

Why KOSOVO?

Is it because Bill doesn't care about Africa?

here's what the d's are saying about Hillster and B.Hussein said...

With new books rehashing old worries about Hillary Clinton, we are reminded yet again that if the Dem primary really will come down to Iraq, Barack Obama will cruise to the nomination.

Recommending Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Arianna Huffington recounts how both candidates wait til the final minutes to cast their votes against funding the Iraq war, but then goes on to only criticize HRC for not leading on the issue.

Also at MyDD, Matt Stoller shares his recent efforts convincing a fellow Harvard grad that Obama's foreign policy rhetoric is not as progessive as his image.

Stoller laments: "[H]e acknowledged that Obama's rhetoric was at odds with what he believed about Obama. And yet, he just didn't care."

hillary wants power for her own need for power. she's the most dangerous to america said...

At the newly redesigned Huffington Post, Arianna doesn't think all the issues raised by Her Way are trivial: "Forget the stuff about Monica, Gennifer Flowers, Vince Foster, Hillary's record as a lawyer, or the Clintons' 20-year plan for both of them to become president.

The money chapters are the ones on Iraq.

When it comes to Hillary's shape-shifting stances, explanations, and votes on the war, Gerth and Van Natta offer a definitive and chilling portrait of a politician solely driven by political expedience -- even when it comes to life and death matters such as Iraq.

It's a portrait that will likely prove to be an anvil around her neck throughout the 2008 campaign, unless she can somehow transform herself from political weather vane to political leader."

here's how the hillary intends to lead.wait til everyone else votes and then decide her vote. said...

Also hitting Clinton on Iraq, The Left Coaster's soccerdad blogs: "Hillary Clinton's cynical vote against the Iraq funding bill encapsulates the approach of the democratic leadership's approach to the Iraq war.

Clinton sat back showed no leadership, did not shape the debate or policy and then when it was clear that the funding measure would pass, then voted against it.

This puts her in the position of claiming she voted against the funding thus casting herself as antiwar without leaving much of a trail freeing her to put any spin on it she wants.

what will they do and when will they do it? said...

does clinton have a plan or just a bumper sticker? What does she plan to do in January, 2009? She hasn't said.

She has only said Bush needs to tidy this all up by then so she doesn't have to get her hands dirty being a leader.

She doesn't like to get her hands dirty. she likes to be all things to all people, which means she has no core belief system that guides her decision making.

Quest for Power is her only motivation.

RF said...

Kosovo. Ongoing genocide. I don’t remember anyone making any fictional excuses about direct threats to us. Just the right thing to do. Especially in retrospect, excellent response to a difficult situation. With Rwanda, at least Bill openly admits he regrets not going in.

Some facts from a Somalia crisis chronology: “US President George Bush launches Somalia intervention. …. He [President Bush] assures the public that he plans for the troops to be home by Clinton's inauguration in January.”

how interesting. the D presidentials agree with al-qaeda. they have the same point of view. said...

An American member of Al-Qaeda warned in an Internet video that President George W. Bush should withdraw all his troops from Muslim land or face attacks worse than September 11.

Adam Gadahn, a convert to Islam who has been indicted for treason by a US jury, issued a list of demands and warned they were not up for negotiation.

"Your failure to heed our demands means that you and your people... will experience things that will make you forget all about the horrors of September 11, Afghanistan and Iraq, and Virginia Tech," he said in the video posted on Tuesday.

He also called on the United States to cease support for the "bastard state of Israel" and the "56-plus apostate regimes of the Muslim world" and to free all Muslims from its prisons.

"We don't negotiate with war criminals and baby killers like you. No, these are legitimate demands which must be met," he said.

it's not that she's a woman. it's that she's a hard core liberal disguised as a journalist said...

COURIC HITS NEW ALL-TIME LOW FOR 'CBS EVENING NEWS'

VIEWERS, WEEK OF 5/21/07
ABC: 7,780,000
NBC: 7,190,000
CBS: 5,960,000

valerie plame and joe wilson are big fat liars and useful idiots said...

WASHINGTON — Former CIA officer Valerie Plame should explain "differences" in her various accounts of how her husband was sent to the African nation of Niger in 2002 to investigate reports Iraq was trying to buy uranium there, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said.

Plame's differing versions have furthered "misinformation" about the origins of the case that roiled Washington beginning in July 2003, said Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo. Plame gave those accounts to the CIA's inspector general, Senate investigators and a House committee in March.

A February 2002 CIA memo released last week as part of a study of pre-Iraq-war intelligence shows that Plame suggested her husband, former State Department official Joseph Wilson, for the Niger trip, Bond said. That "doesn't square" with Plame's March testimony in which she said an unnamed CIA colleague raised her husband's name, Bond told USA TODAY.

Here are Plame's three versions of how Wilson was sent to Niger, according to Bond:

•She told the CIA's inspector general in 2003 or 2004 that she had suggested Wilson.

•Plame told Senate Intelligence Committee staffers in 2004 that she couldn't remember whether she had suggested Wilson.

•She told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in March that an unidentified person in Vice President Cheney's office asked a CIA colleague about the African uranium report in February 2002. A third officer, overhearing Plame and the colleague discussing this, suggested, "Well, why don't we send Joe?" Plame told the committee.

CIA officials have been unable to verify Plame's March version, Bond said.

RF said...

So looks like Fred Thompson is going to be in. That will make things even more interesting on the R side.

bald is presidentially beautiful said...

I agree rf. and he's better looking than Romney. love those bald heads ya know.

democrats are sheep and don't do their own research said...

here's what I want to know about the democrats and Plamegate.

Since it's been clear for quite some time that Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame lied and no crime was committed against them, nor were any rules violated by revealing her name, how come the D's were so willing to believe Joe Wilson without any intellectual curiosity being demonstrated?

Pelosi/Reid either KNEW it was a lie all the time to be exploited for political purposes (which is what I believe) or, they are really really stupid and believed whatever anyone told them (ok, I believe that too).

When they cry out about the press not investigating the war enough, what is different about Plamegate?

The Real Sporer said...

Spotlight post the link to the page in the 9.11 commission report that al qaeda wasn't in Iraq before the US/Allied invasion, particularly that Zarqawi wasn't in Iraq.

I didn't say anything about 9.11. Hell, even if I concede no Iraqi involvement at all in 9.11, you implicitly concede the flaw in your position.

The War on Terror is real and its against a whole lot more enemies that Al Qaeda. It is against all of radicalised Islam in the form of Islamofacsism and global terror networks.

The Real Sporer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

The 9/11 Commission was a joke. Your citing of it eliminates your credibility.

Let me get this straight said...

The liberals are stomping around screaming that we are involved in a civil war in Iraq and therefore we should pull out. Yet in the same breath they want us to intervene in a different civil war in which we have absolutely no business whatsoever.

I guess the Iraqi's skin wasn't dark enough.

Spotlight said...

"The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.
Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."

But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.

The staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

The finding challenges a belief held by large numbers of Americans about al Qaeda's ties to Hussein. According to a Harris poll in late April, a plurality of Americans, 49 percent to 36 percent, believe "clear evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda has been found."

THere's more at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

I can see you are slyly wriggling away from the false linking of AQ and Saddam by merely asserting certain people were present in Iraq. But you assert it in the same sentence where you claim Saddam was a threat to the US, thus setting up an unjustified connection in the mind of the casual reader. That connection has been debunked by the bi-partisan 9/11 commission and all other reputable sources.

RF said...

I'm glad to hear we have bipartisan appreciation for baldness. As a D, I should probably advocate for an affirmative action program for such candidates.

Anonymous said...

Again, Spotlight...the 9-11 Commission was a joke!!!

spotlight - gives us some light on Sandy Burger said...

the 9-11 commission report is just a bunch of hooey since sandy burgler (clintons National Security Advisor) took relevent documents from the national archives. Do you suppose those documents were damning of Clinton so that's why Sandy "rolled over" for Clinton?

Also, the Clintons were able to put the one actually real guilty party on the commission so that we didn't get to get the Able Danger information in there.

I can't remember her name but she was responsible for the decision to put the firewall up between the CIA and the FBI, so that they could not exchange information.

That wall was the biggest failure that led to 9-11. She had a stake in the outcome because she was one of the players and should NEVER have been on the commission in the first place.

Anonymous said...

11:20

It was Jamie Gorelick. She was assistant AG under Reno. Gorelick issued a memo stating that the FBI and CIA could not communicate with each other on matters of national security.

This was to prevent the FBI and CIA from hanging the entire Clinton administration for treason when they found out the Chinese Military was laundering money through the DNC into the Clinton/Gore campaign.

Ashcroft was BRUTAL on Gorelick when he testified to the commission which, IMHO, is what ultimately led to his being pushed out. Gorelick denied she ever wrote the memo so after his testimony, Ashcroft went back to the office and posted the documents that incriminated Gorelick on the DOJ website.

Don't even get me started on Sandy Burglar.

Labels

Amazon Bookstore