Posted on 10/01/2006 8:24:21 AM PDT by dirtboy
Over the last few days, the non-profit organization SaveDarfur has been running heart-wrenching commercials showing the victims of ongoing genocide in Darfur. The commercials are quite effective on an emotional level, as they should be for anyone with a heart. And then, at the end, there is a call to action for viewers.
What is the call to action, you might ask?
Is it a call for the UN to get serious about forcing Sudan (a member of the UN Human Rights Commission) to stop blocking deployment of a 22,500 member UN Peacekeeping force? (something already approved by the Security Council)
Is it a call for public pressure for sanctions or even military action against Sudan?
Of course not. The end of the commercial implores viewers to tell President Bush to take action to stop the genocide. And implies he hasn't been doing anything along those lines by not saying anything else on the matter.
Well, perhaps one could make the argument that they are working within the limits of a 30-second television commercial - you can't always squeeze in the full story in that short of a time span.
However, they are also running a print campaign that is under no such limitations. And here is what the print campaign is saying:
Auschwitz. Armenia. Rwanda. Bosnia. Now Darfur.
We have seen the haunting pictures, heard the cries of grieving mothers. Mr. President, you can end it tomorrow when you speak to the United Nations and the world. You need only stand up and say that the United States and its allies will take decisive action now to protect lives in Darfur. That the United States, and the rest of the world, will move now to deploy the UN force they've already approved. In America the support for action crosses partisan lines. John McCain and Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and Bob Dole support taking action now.
Please, Mr. President. Beyond politics, beyond borders, beyond religion, there is the moral imperative to save lives. Mr. President, the world is waiting. The lives of two million people hang on your every word tomorrow. Please don't let them down.
TO SEND A MESSAGE TO PRESIDENT BUSH GO TO:
WWW.SAVEDARFUR.ORG
Well, maybe SaveDarfur.org simply isn't aware of all the Bush Adminstration has done to try and halt the genocide in Darfur. Except for the fact that they have the following items on their own website - a press release dated September 19th:
Washington, DC – The Save Darfur Coalition today applauded President Bush’s commitment to get UN peacekeepers into Darfur and his appointment of Andrew Natsios to be his Presidential Special Envoy for Sudan during his address to the United Nations. The Coalition also stressed the need for both Mr. Natsios and President Bush to immediately increase pressure on the Sudanese Government to accept the already authorized UN peacekeeping force. Natsios previously served as the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and as the Special Humanitarian Coordinator for Sudan.
“By appointing Andrew Natsios to be his Special Envoy for Sudan, the President has told the world that he is serious about ending the crisis and building a lasting peace, and that means getting true security to the people who need it,” said David Rubenstein, Coordinator of the Save Darfur Coalition. “The true measure by which history will judge the President’s efforts to end this genocide is not what he says today, but what he does tomorrow. He and Mr. Natsios must be relentless until the genocide is stopped.”
So even as they were producing the TV and Print commercials and making the media buys, they were applauding Bush on their own website.
But maybe the Bush Admin isn't taking the actions needed to pressure Sudan into allowing the UN peacekeeping force into Darfur.
Or maybe the Bush Admin IS pressuring Sudan. Once again, from SaveDarfur's own website:
US tells Sudan: cooperate or expect confrontation
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Sudan in firm terms on Wednesday it must choose between "cooperation and confrontation" with the rest of the world and accept a U.N. force for Darfur. "Innocent people are suffering and dying. The humanitarian situation, already tenuous, is at risk of becoming a complete disaster. And the hope of peace is now in danger of collapsing altogether," she said of Darfur. Aside from the threat of punitive action, the United States has begun dangling the carrot of incentives if Sudan agrees to a U.N. force, including the promise of reconstruction funds and improved bilateral ties. "If the government of Sudan chooses cooperation -- if it works with the United Nations and welcomes the U.N. force into Darfur, then it will find a dedicated partner in the United States," said Rice. Darfur has become a rallying cry in the United States among a range of religious, political and rights groups and the Bush administration is under strong pressure to act. The Save Darfur Coalition ran a full-page advertisement in The New York Times on Wednesday, showing mass graves in Darfur. "When all the bodies have been buried in Darfur, how will history judge us?" said the headline on the advertisement.
Well, then, what does SaveDarfur have to say about this contradiction?
From their own FAQ
Why is the Coalition calling upon President Bush to help make sure UN peacekeepers are sent immediately to Darfur? Shouldn’t that be the UN’s responsibility?
The recent television ads sponsored by the Save Darfur Coalition asking President Bush to take the lead in pushing for the deployment of a UN force in Darfur are not meant in any way to “bash” the President, but rather to urge him to follow through on the good work he and his Administration have already begun. We are both cognizant and appreciative of the fact that the President has done more for the people of Darfur than any other world leader. In fact, it is because of his leadership thus far that we direct our pleas to President Bush now. The hard truth is that the United Nations does not have a standing army it can choose to deploy, it must instead rely on its member states to do the hard work necessary to actually deploy a peacekeeping force once that force has been authorized. As the strongest of member states, we believe that the United States, under the President’s leadership, must lead the international effort to raise and deploy that UN peacekeeping force. While we are not calling for U.S. troops in Darfur, we are calling for the strong U.S. leadership necessary to ensure that a capable UN force is raised and sent to Darfur as soon as possible.
It is also worth noting that while these ads running in the U.S. call for stronger leadership from President Bush, similar ads being run internationally call upon various international leaders to provide strong leadership as well. Advocacy directed at President Bush is not the sum total of our advocacy efforts, but is in fact only the U.S. directed portion of a larger international advocacy campaign directed at the top echelon of world leaders.
Read that again:
We are both cognizant and appreciative of the fact that the President has done more for the people of Darfur than any other world leader
So why is there NO mention of that in the TV or print ads? Why didn't SaveDarfur re-word the commercials to say something along the lines of "President Bush has exercised strong leadership to stop the genocide. Please call him up and say you back him to take even more concrete action!"
Well, maybe a look at the Executive Committee for SaveDarfur.org would reveal just WHY they don't want to give him such credit in their commercials - it includes many sworn enemies of the Bush Adminstration who have had no qualms about spreading lies about the Bush Admin in the past:
American Jewish World Service
American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA Society)
Amnesty International USA
Citizens for Global Solutions
Darfur Peace and Development
Genocide Intervention Network
International Crisis Group
Jewish Council for Public Affairs
NAACP
National Association of Evangelicals
National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA
STAND: A Student Anti-Genocide Coalition
Union for Reform Judaism
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
-------------------
I have a suggestion. Instead of calling President Bush to take action on Darfur when he already clearly is doing such by the very admission of those running ad campaigns claiming otherwise, I would suggest that freepers and other Americans outraged by this misleading advertising campaign use the contact information on the SaveDarfur website and tell SaveDarfur to tell the whole story in the commercials, instead of implying that Bush is doing nothing to stop the genocide. This may have been an honest mistake, or it may be politically motivated (after all, the November elections are not far off). But either way, it reeks no matter what the underlying motives may have been, and is counterproductive towards stopping the genocide in Darfur. SaveDarfur.org should pull these ads immediately and issue an apology to the Bush Adminstration for not telling the entire story:
Mail
Save Darfur Coalition
Suite 600
2120 L Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20037
Phone
(202) 478-6311
Fax
(202) 223-9579
Email
info@savedarfur.org
Glad you did, I'm spreading the word among my non-political friends so they hopefully won't be duped during the upcoming elections.
I saw this Commie ad for the first time yesterday and all I can say is that this Darfur crowd has to be doing a whole lot a drugs to believe they can get away with blaming the fiasco in Darfur on President Bush. Probably the most disgusting thing I've heard out of a bunch of pothead, Commie sexual deviants to date. Darfur is none of our business. If the U.S. gets involved in that sewer, I'LL become an "anti-war" protestor. Somebody needs to be shot over this stupid and disgusting propaganda "ad" being shown on TV in my country.
What they are willing to grant on their own website won't find its way into the ads because of, as you suspect, their board of directors. A contributors list for this rather elaborate campaign might also be even more enlightening.
As far as the ad copy is concerned, there is a professional need to call the reader/viewer to action. And, as you note, the way this particular call to action is framed avoids stating an admitted truth and implies something that isn't the truth.
A copywriter has to work to do that. It has nothing to do with the 30-second limitation.
At best, it's sloppy writing and editing. At worst, it's probably what it really is -- propaganda.
"The recent television ads sponsored by the Save Darfur Coalition asking President Bush to take the lead in pushing for the deployment of a UN force in Darfur are not meant in any way to “bash” the President, but rather to urge him to follow through on the good work he and his Administration have already begun. We are both cognizant and appreciative of the fact that the President has done more for the people of Darfur than any other world leader. In fact, it is because of his leadership thus far that we direct our pleas to President Bush now."
The above is blatant disinformation. I know, I was personally there, in Central Park, in New York City, on September 17th during the "Save Darfur" rally.
I was supposed to meet two friends whose churhes have been working with one of the religious groups advocating for international action to end the conflict and genocide in Darfur. When we didn't meet-up at our designated meeting place, at Fifth Ave and 86th street, I waited awhile and then went ahead on my own.
The first thing that was so obvious was that the event was staged more as a fund-raiser, membership drive and organizational awarness raising event for one of the lead partners in the Save Darfur coalition - Amnesty International. The Amnesty people, their placards, their insignia, the banners, their T-shirts, their stick-on-your clothing decals, their staff, their workers seeking new members far and away were a more significant presence than the symbols of the Save Darfur coalition itself - by a very wide margin.
As usual with such events, things get started late. They had some music, some singing and an African dance group as "warmup" acts for the speakers. Nothing to object about.
The majority of folks in my immediate area were friendly enough, even with their Amnesty patches on their clothes.
What surprised me, but should not have, was the incongruity of their sincerity and seeming passion for the issue along side of their utter ignorance of (1)Darfur, geographically, (2)history of the conflict there, (3) racial and ethnic distinctions between the groups in Darfur, (4)role of China in Sudan, economically today, (5)role of China and Russia blocking stronger action on Darfur in the Security Council, (6)history of just what has taken place (on Darfur) in the Security Council, who proposed actions and who defeated those proposals.
There is nothing deadlier in world geo-political crises than high passion that your cause, and the views of your leaders in that cause, are right, coupled with extreme ignorance. It is just the right mix for the prevaricators of misinformation to turn your passion to their political interest.
The first speaker was a woman (whose name I forgot) but who was presented as one of the people from one of the main "humanitarian" organizations that had been working in Darfur (as she herself had) for the last ten years. She was "moderate" enough, while ending with an obvious "lead in" for the next speaker, suggesting that America alone, through its leaders, can change the course of what's happening in Darfur.
That was the "right" opening for the speach by Madeline Halfbright. Here was the Clintonista who sat on the Security Council and tolerated the genocide in Rwanda, preaching to her audience that George Bush must be asleep or he (all by himself) would have brought more action at the United Nations by now.
She was not the last speaker (to thousands) to say directly to the audience that if the United Nations failed to act, the voters should make George Bush pay for that failure in November.
I think it was mid-speech of the 2nd or third speaker after Miss Halfbright that I got up and left in disgust.
The general tone of the event had become another "bash Bush" cause and openly ignored the facts and particularly the facts that the United States UN delegation has been the most forceful Security Council delegation on Darfur and that each "appeasing" action has been forced on the Security Council by either China, Russia, or France with the applause (and votes) from the sidelines from any Arab or "third world" delegations.
One speaker as much as said that (and I'll paraphrase)
"if George Bush really wanted to, he could force the security council votes" we need to end the genocide.
The whole thing was, for Darfur, a real farce and for NY lefties a pre-November pep rally; nothing more. In sum, it showed what phonies the "human rights" organizations really are. They do not exist to promote human rights. The "Human rights" agenda is simply a political tool, with no real underlying morality.
Given the honest participation of many religious organizations in the efforts to help those in Darfur, the Central Park event was a bummer, even though I could have predicted much of the event that disgusted me.
I think we should be writing to our religious friends and asking that their organizations sever their association with the present "Save Darfur" coaltion and continue to work as their own group, without Amnesty International and its political fellow-travelors.
But in their minds the statements on the website give them an "out" against criticism. And I imagine they will use the 30-second defense regarding the TV commercial - that there simply wasn't time to tell the whole story.
But that falls flat given they didn't tell the whole story in the print campaign.
"if George Bush really wanted to, he could force the security council votes" we need to end the genocide.
Amazing. If Bush ever threatened or strong-armed a Security Council member, the shrieks from the left would deafening.
without Amnesty International and its political fellow-travelors.
Amnesty is big into a fall membership drive at the moment.
From the same crowd that decries that Bush seeks to go it alone in the world.
Very interesting.....like I posted earlier..the last line of this ad is "Please President Bush, stop the genocide"....it all fits now!
Instead of this:
Please, Mr. President. Beyond politics, beyond borders, beyond religion, there is the moral imperative to save lives. Mr. President, the world is waiting. The lives of two million people hang on your every word tomorrow. Please don't let them down.
Try this.
President Bush and America have done more to recognize that beyond borders, beyond religion, there is the moral imperative to save lives. We must keep up this good work. The lives of two million people depend upon it. Please give President Bush your support.
More honest. And, maybe, a little more effective...
Which is to say, "What thirty-second problem?"
Liberals! Bah!!!
Just thought you might find that interesting if you hadn't already seen it.
There is no military solution, internal or external to the situation in Darfur.
Typical lefties. They had no problem with a military solution to the claimed genocide in Kosovo. But since Bush is in the White House instead of Clinton, all of a sudden we can't have those EVIL Republicans rattling the sabers at Sudan. After all, Sudan IS a member in good standing on the UN Human Rights Commission, whereas we know everyone knows the Bush Admin has less moral authority than Sudan because they are torturing the detainees at Gitmo by making them fresh baklava for Ramadan.
Sudan will continue to draw out the process as long as no one threatens them with a military response. It's that simple. They, like all other despots, have learned they can count on Russia or France or China to veto any effective UN response and can rely on bureaucratic dithering to delay action until the dirty work is done.
bump
US slams Annan deputy for criticizing US, British stand on Darfur
UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - US Ambassador John Bolton took UN deputy secretary general Mark Malloch Brown to task after the latter criticized Washington and London for their "megaphone diplomacy" in trying to persuade Sudan to accept a UN force in Darfur.
In an interview with the Independent newspaper, Malloch Brown, Kofi Annan's deputy, said the US and British approach was "counterproductive almost" and opened the door to Sudan comparing itself to Iraq and Afghanistan, both invaded as part of the "war on terror".
"These remarks bring discredit to the UN and are a stain on its reputation," said Bolton, the US envoy to the UN. "Mr Malloch Brown should apologize to (US President George W.) Bush and (British Prime Minister Tony) Blair."
"We are proud we have called the attention of the international community to the tragedy in Darfur ... And to have Malloch Brown attack those efforts brings great discredit to this effort," he added.
In June, Bolton clashed with Malloch Brown after Annan's deputy suggested that Washington was not informing the American people about the UN's good work in support of US foreign policy goals.
In response, Bolton, on a trip to London, then said: "It is illegitimate for an international civil servant to criticize what he thinks are the inadequacies of the citizens of a member government."
Last month, the UN Security Council agreed to send 17,000 troops and 3,000 police to Darfur to take over from an ill-equipped and cash-strapped African Union force. But Khartoum is adamantly opposed to the deployment of a robust UN contingent in Darfur.
"Sudan doesn't see a united international community," Malloch Brown told the Independent.
"And that allows it to characterize themselves as the victims of the next crusade after Iraq and Afghanistan... So Tony Blair and George Bush need to get beyond this posturing and grandstanding," he noted.
"This megaphone diplomacy coming out of Washington and London -- 'you damn well are going to let the UN deploy and if you don't, beware the circumstances' -- isn't plausible," he added.
Because of Khartoum's refusal to accept the UN force, African Union leaders have agreed to extend the mandate of their operation until December 31 after receiving promises of UN logistical support and funding from Arab states.
----------------
So on one hand, you have the likes of SaveDarfur running ads saying Bush needs to do more to stop the genocide. And then you have some UN pinhead saying the US needs to do less.
Typical liberal squeeze play - set up a situation where you can damn Bush if he does and damn Bush if he doesn't. Who cares if it all sandbags efforts to end the genocide?
EXACTLY!
"Methinks liberals should start adapting the informercial approach for their political ads. After all, both promote things that don't permform anywhere near as well as claimed in the commercials."
Maybe we can get Ron of Ronco fame to do the infomercials:
"Folks, let me introduce you to the "Liberl-o-Matic!
It taxes!
it spends!
it lies!
it subverts!
it cheats!
And best of all, ladies and gentlemen, it never needs cleaning! That's right! Everyone knows you can't clean up a Liberal, so why try!
and it's yours for only $129.95!!!!
Now THAT'S some copywriting!
LOL!
Very good!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.