Daylife/Getty Images used by permission
|
Five House Democrats, including civil rights pioneer John Lewis of Georgia, were among the eight people arrested during a demonstration outside the Sudanese Embassy Monday morning. The representatives were protesting Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir’s expulsion last month of 16 aid groups from war-ravaged Darfur.
The other four lawmakers arrested were Donna Edwards of Maryland, James McGovern of Massachusetts, Lynn Woolsey of California and the first Muslim elected to Congress, Keith Ellison of Minnesota.
The Secret Service arrested the lawmakers and charged with them crossing a police line, which is a misdemeanor.
The three other activists arrested during the protest were Jerry Fowler, president of Save Darfur Now; John Prendergast, a co-founder of the Enough Project who worked in the State Department during the Clinton Administration; and Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism.
You didn’t expect any “pro-life” Republicans, did you?
I’m sorry you are off your meds again, Fusion, so I will try to keep it simple.
Oh, and actually read my post this time around…
“The Sudan was a limited time incursion.”
Just when, and be specific, did America have a “limited time incursion” into the Sudan?
How about this for some truth?
“For forceful intervention in Iraq, Ash has concluded that Bush has given democracy a bad name. What name does the inaction on Sudan give humanity, one ought to ask Ash. Bush was first to call Darfur genocide. Now the world has come to admit, howbeit reluctantly, that genocide is taking place in Sudan.
For all the arguments advanced against Saddam Hussein, the point that was never pursued aggressively was whether he committed genocide. The Human Rights Organization thought that his attacks on the Kurds were. But this admission proved to be too much for some since doing so would have meant that Bush was, at least, half right on his call on Iraq.
The admission could also have justified an American incursion into Sudan today. Instead, the moral impasse that resulted from the opposition to Bush has led to the worsening of the situation in Darfur.”
http://allafrica.com/stories/200802180160.html
Hummm… “the moral impasse that resulted from the opposition to Bush has led to the worsening of the situation in Darfur.”
Moral impasse, by whom I imagine?
Could it be, possibly, Democrats? Could it be possible that Democrats are OK with Genocide? After all, you guys were OK with the Kurds being massacured,
You were also OK with the Rwandan genocide.
“President Bill Clinton’s administration knew Rwanda was being engulfed by genocide in April 1994 but buried the information to justify its inaction, according to classified documents made available for the first time.”
(The Guardian)
http://tinyurl.com/3pfh2y
800,000 dead.
How about Pol Pot during Carter’s term in office. 1.7 million dead.
The Ethiopian Massacre. 1977-1978. 500,000 dead. Carter Administration.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” (Edmund Burke, 1729-1797)
This perfectly sums up the Democratic Hypocrisy. Crying when Bush actually does something but feeling self-righteous and smug when you do nothing.
#34, Ah Yea,
“The Sudan was a limited time incursion.”
Just when, and be specific, did America have a “limited time incursion” into the Sudan?
My bad and thank you pointing that out. Yes, I meant Somalia. My error.
# 33 Mr. Fusion said, “Since when is a UN or NATO sponsored peace keeping mission considered a war?”
Why don’t you name some specific ones in similar circumstances that have been successful without armed conflict as part of the “mission”…
#34, Ah Yea,
You bring up some good points that are difficult to argue with.
Pol Pot was right after the Viet Nam War. There was no way anyone would look favorably on American troops returning to South East Asia. Democrat, Republican, liberal or conservative. As well, Pol Pot was backed by the Chinese and we did not want to engage in a dispute with China and or even think of becoming a Viet Nam ally at that time.
Ethiopia was different. It was a Soviet satellite and thus there was little the west could do without provoking a major confrontation with the USSR. If it is any consolation, the problems started during Nixon and Ford’s Administration.
There is no excuse for Rwanda. I can only assume that Clinton was gun shy after Somalia. He quickly learned his lesson though and did intervene in Kosovo and to a limited degree in Bosnia.
I see Obama’s problem in not having any troops left to send to Darfur. They are being wasted in Iraq (but can’t leave because of the resulting vacuum) and Afghanistan. Nor do we have the money to help other countries perform a peace keeping mission.
#37 Mr. Fusion
Thank you.
I was getting all ready for a contest and you took the wind out of my sails with an excellent and well thought out response.
A tip o’ the hat to you!
# 38 Mr. Fusion said, Vietnam was a “police action”.
Get with the times. It’s now called WAR again, as is appropriate. As in, the “Balkan War” that Clinton involved us in. It wasn’t the Balkan police action.
You can’t change the reality of something by calling it by a different name. That’s a loony liberal tactic. Using your military to attack people is called WAR.
#39, Ah Yea,
Actually, I should be thanking you for bringing up those points.
We shouldn’t be making excuses for remaining inactive. In 10 years when my kid asks me why we didn’t do anything to help those in Darfur, how will “we couldn’t afford it” sound when it is contrasted with all the dead. The very same point Rwanda brings up today.