Monday, October 09, 2006


Yesterday I was watching on CNN the interminable coverage of Korea’s nuclear test when I saw an accusatory commercial advocating Bush’s intervention in Darfur (Darfur conflict).

The hypocrisy of the people who demonize George W. Bush is astounding. They’ve slandered and libeled him for years on his intervention in Iraq, and now they do the same for his non-intervention in Darfur. What’s the difference between Darfur and Iraq? There has been genocide in both places.

The differences between them include that Darfur has no American national interest involved. There is no oil interest, and no danger to America from the conflict in Darfur. Darfur would be a purely humanitarian venture. I’m not against intervention in Darfur. In fact, I favor it. Yet the same left that screams about Darfur are the ones who have weakened Bush’s ability for any interventionist policy abroad. They have made it next to impossible for Bush to lead any sort of militaristic coalition anywhere, including against Iran, Korea, or even Darfur.

Why, in the left’s mind, is Darfur more worthy of intervention than Iraq was? It boils down to political correctness. The left will not tolerate the U.S. protecting oil resources. They will not cheer the U.S. fighting terrorism, nor ensuring America’s safety. These are not the left’s causes. The only genocide worth stopping is if it involves politically correct causes, devoid of any American national interest. We are not supposed to be the world’s policemen, except when it affects the downtrodden, the weak, the helpless, the politically and strategically insignificant.

Iraq didn’t qualify with any of these measures. Iraq had genocide. Who cares? Iraq controls a huge oil supply. Good reason not to intervene. Iraq was paying $25,000 to families of suicide bombers in Israel. Protecting Israel is not politically correct to the left. Iraq tried to assassinate George Bush senior. Again, who cares? Iraq was advocating violence against America and shooting at our planes. So? Iraq had used chemical weapons on its own people and intended on building a nuclear weapon. Yeah, yeah.

Now that the left has crippled Bush politically, how can they possibly expect him to intervene in Darfur? Bush is a politician. This is not a dirty word. Polls do matter. Elections determine power. World opinion does count. A weakened Bush can, at most, lend support to any international effort to intervene in Darfur. He cannot do more. It is unthinkable for the “warmongering” Bush to lead a military effort anywhere now, even in the left’s favorite places. You reap what you sow.


(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


paz y amor said...

I agree that there is some hypocracy involved people bitching about action in Iraq and bitching about inaction in Darfur. However, there is also hypocracy with the government's argument for action in Iraq with the present rationale (excuse) that Iraqi's want freedom and that the Iraqi government was killing it's own people. WELL, Darfur is probably the WORST place to be for a civilian due to the raids by ISLAMIC militias- yes, more than Baghdad. Let's not forget that Osama was allowed to have training camps in uhhhhhh SUDAN, by the Sudanese government, not Iraq, so one can argue that controlling Sudan is just as important if not moreso in the so called war on terrorism. Regardless, your point about our humanitarian/military efforts being all about national monetary interest is dead on- ESPECIALLY regarding Iraq. Why risk American lives to save a bunch of Africans with little usable natural resources? You know what I'm getting at.....

Obviously invading Iraq wasn't politically correct considering the STILL vague and unsubstatiated reasons for attacking. Yes he gave money to families of suicide bombers, yes he gassed Kurds in 1982, yes he tried to get the Smart G. Bush killed, BUT none of those reasons have ever been part of the government's rationale to wage war in Baghdad. Those are YOUR reasons and you have been the only person I've heard make a case for war based on them. Is it "politically correct" or MORALLY correct to intervene in a CURRENT mass genocide? Saddam wasn't butchering Iraqis in the streets, gassing Kurds in Kirkuk or focibly raping women by the thousands when we invaded. He was an asshole with lots of oil and an inflated ego that toyed with the international community. I have a feeling he's getting the last laugh considering REPUBLICAN politicians are starting to say in veiled tones that we need to start thinking about getting out of Iraq....

Contrary to your notion that the "left" is hindering Bush's ability to lead, and do what he "needs" to do, it's apparent that we need some fact checking. HELLO! Last I checked, Republicans STILL have the majority in the House and the Senate as well as a conservative leaning Supreme Court. For the last 6 years, the "left" has had little partisan power other than bitching and moaning about what the conservatives are and aren't doing. Bush is crippling HIMSELF with BAD foreign policy, BAD decision making in Iraq and LOW levels of international credibility. What nation wants to support his military actions after the debacle that is Iraq? The "left" didn't make that decision, BUSH DID. Afterall, if Bush REALLY felt the need to intervene and do the "Christian thing" he would have sent help by now. He's not concerned with it, and you and I both know it.
Should we intervene in Darfur? HELL YES! The world does not need another Rwanda, but for some reason, no one but "liberal" organizations (like Doctor's Without Borders) are trying to help the people there. It's unthinkable for the US to lead military action there because we CAN'T. Attack Iran, and N. Korea? Can't do it- not a chance and that is why AMerican diplomats are doing their best to negotiate. Hmmmm, Saddam had 24 hours to negotiate, and turn over something he obviously didn't have. Not that the US doesn't have the military might, it's the fighting morale that would suffer from engaging in yet ANOTHER battle, this one against countries that really ARE a threat.

By the way (it's off the subject...), your argument in your blog was that Fox "news" was fair and balanced as they claim, but your response to my comment was that Fox was biased (for the conservative side) and should verify itself as such so long as CNN et al does the same. OK, which one is it, fair and balanced or biased?

Rock said...

paz, thanks for your comments, insightful as usual.

I'll start with FOX:

your argument in your blog was that Fox "news" was fair and balanced as they claim, but your response to my comment was that Fox was biased (for the conservative side) and should verify itself as such so long as CNN et al does the same. OK, which one is it, fair and balanced or biased?

FOX is conservative and biased, just like CNN is liberal and biased. FOX, though, knows there is another side to all issues, and actually listens to the other side. I know you disagree with me on this, but that's what I see. If I want the liberal spin, I'll listen to CNN and read the New York Times. If I want the complete picture, but with a conservartive spin, I'll listen to FOX and read The Weekly Standard.

Well, we agree on Darfur, but disagree on everything else.

If all America were behind Bush, as I believe they should be, we'd have won the Iraq war by now. The terrorists could not, then, have taken succor from American dissent, and they would not have had the morale to continue fighting. Have you heard some of their internal communiques? They have several times written each other that they felt they were losing, but then another American protest would occur, which would cheer them on. The left certainly has weakened Bush, and America.

As far as Bush's rationale for invading Iraq--here I agree that he screwed up big time. So what? We are rational adults, and we can have our own motivation for things. I wanted the war in Iraq to shake up the Middle East. The status quo there was dead Israelis and hatred for the West, leading to 9/11 BEFORE BUSH INVADED IRAQ! The left's idea that if we were just nice to the terrorists they'd go and leave us alone is pathetically naive. Terrorist attacks like 9/11 take ten years planning. The plans for the attack were being made during the Clinton years, and he certainly was a nice guy to the world, and to Muslims. He even saved their butt in Kosovo. Were they grateful?

As far as morale goes, paz, if we were behind the war effort like we were in WWII, we'd win. We could take care of Iran, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, all of it. For one thing, these places would fall like dominos once they saw we were determined. I agree the U.S. can't do all these things alone, but world opinion is also influenced by a leader's popularity in his homeland. Blair has been weakened in Britain, and Bush in America, and this makes them less effective leaders on the world stage.

The army's morale is literally sapped by the left. They report this often, verbally, to whomever will listen.

I hope the day never comes when we naturally have to unite again in this country. We did it for awhile after 9/11. We did it after Pearl Harbor. It is during times like these that you can literally see how invincible America can be when she unites. Our worst time of division was the civil war, where we killed each other by the millions.

A distant dim cousin to that division is what we are in now, with hatred in the air. Not blood, nothing close to blood, but a deep division of red and blue, conservative and liberal.

Fine, I accept the division. That's the way it is. I also accept the left's right to believe as they do, and act as they do. Unfortunately, what they believe in, at this time, I judge, is weakening our country, almost fatally. I repeat that I think they have crippled Bush.

Vigilante said...

Interesting ideas presented here. So many, there's no telling where I should begin.

Let me just say that I agree with the precept that it's a laudable consistency to have opposed intervention in both Darfur and Iraq. I can sleep at night knowing I have been consistent in regard. Also, I have been consistent in opposing the use and expenditure of our military might except in circumstances where our national interests are at stake.

Speaking of which, there are enough petroleum resources in the Sudan to motivate the Chinese to curry favor there.

There's no time for me to say more, other than you have an interesting point of view here. I'll probably be back as time permits.