Posted on 10/12/2006 4:08:30 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
view edit Posted by Mark Finkelstein on October 12, 2006 - 06:58. There's a saying along the lines that liberals will always oppose the use of US force - except where US security interests are not at stake. The New York Times editorial of this morning, The Age of Impunity, provides a perfect case in point.
The central thesis is this:
"Bush has squandered so much of America’s moral authority — not to mention our military resources — that efforts to shame or bully the right behavior from adversaries (and allies) sound hollow."
Along the way, the Times recommends that Pres. Bush pander to the rogue regimes in Pyongyang and Tehran by making "a clear pledge — no caveats and no fingers crossed behind his back - that he would not try to overthrow" their governments.
But, after tacitly approving of Pres. Clinton's use of force in Kosovo, the Times flatly recommends force be considered in a place with no arguable US national security interests in play - Darfur.
The Gray Lady suggests that the president announce "that he was taking the lead on soliciting troops for a peacekeeping force while asking NATO to start drawing up plans for a possible forced entry should the United Nations fail to act."
Classic.
NY Times/NewsBusters Times-favors-force ping to Today show list.
Did the NYT mention in the article that the Darfur crisis is ALSO caused by Islamic Fascists.......or did they tip toe around the fact? Just curious.
I personally think Darfur needs to be cleaned up but NOT by us supplying the bulk of force. It's time the rest of the world and those in africa that want to be civilized step up to the plate.
You gotta love it. Bush HAS been the world leader doing the most for Darfur. But now the Slimes, having ripped Bush for not getting full UN approval for use of force in Iraq, now wants him to circumvent the UN like Clinton did with Kosovo.
Excellent point. I went back and checked. Nope - no reference to that angle on the crisis, just a neutral description of "Sudan's leaders" and the "Khartoum" government.
No Republican president is going to be eager for that
He-e-e--e--e-ll==============================o. Uh, Venezuela, North Korea, and Iran....hmmm.
last spring,i believe the NYT ran a big advertising supplement on the glories of the Sudan, paid for by the murderous Khartoum regime, for which it received big bucks. that would seem to compromise its moral authority on this and many other issues.
THEN they will say, "But we had no idea that Bush would manage it so badly."
Been there, done that with Somalia. No thanks NYTimes.
One word... Ebola.
Darfur, Syria, Iran, Palestine, Iraq, it's all the same problem Islamofascism.
HYPOCRISY IN ACTION, AGAIN
They only advocate force there because we haven't used it there... once we do, they will denounce our approach, the "disproportionate" (or else inadequate) use of force, our relations with the local rulers, etc. They simply dissent because of the party in the White House. They have no substantive thoughts behind their opinions.
Getting troops to Darfur could be as bloody as invading Normandy. Once you get there, what are you going to do?
The proper response:
Send a few C-130 loads of captured Islamic AK-47s and scoped Mosin-Naigant rifles to Darfur. Accompany them with enough SF troops to give some small-arms training to the folks in Darfur.
Let them defend themselves.
It'll work.
Cheap.
lol...go figure..(rolling eyes)
They never mention that aspect of the crisis!!
I don't recall who is paying for it, but an ad about the horror in Darfur has been running for awhile. Showing Africans in obvious distress, it says "if he is killed, if she is raped...again; if he starves...", etc. Maybe a tech savvy FReeper can post a link to it.
It finishes with the message to call President Bush and tell him to stop the genocide. The purpose is undoubtedly to lead the uninformed to believe that the Bush administration is responsible for the situation.
The depths to which the left will sink have not yet been plumbed.
Darfur oil ping.
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.