Darfur: the issue for liberal activists who don't want to run a chance of ending up at Club Gitmo. Here's a note I received from Africa Focus:
-------- Original Message --------Why doesn't Bush act?
To: flugennock
Subject: Sudan: Why Doesn't Bush Act on Darfur?
From: africafocus@igc.org
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 07:18:27 -0800Sudan: Why Doesn't Bush Act on Darfur?
AfricaFocus Bulletin
Dec 29, 2006 (061229)http://www.africafocus.org/docs06/sud0612b.php?media
"The crisis in Sudan's Darfur region is intensifying without a meaningful response from the White House [despite President Bush's promise not to allow genocide 'on his watch']...
Jayzus, AF, give the Chimp a break. He's trying to gin up a pretext to bomb the living piss out of the Sudan and take the oil -- uhh, that is, 'save Darfur' as fast as he can:
http://counterpunch.org/frank05112006.html
'Save Darfur? Not So Fast', by Joshua Frank in CounterPunch, 05.11.06
http://www.sinkers.org/posters/outofiraqintodarfur/index.html
You've seen it, you know it, you love it, 05.17.06
Oh, and just a quick rundown of some of the reasons why Darfur is a distractive, bullshit 'crisis':
- The US media are all over it like it was Terry Schiavo. Anne Curry of NBC's 'Today' show has done several live remotes from Darfur -- in true 'embed' style, sitting in the back of a jeep hauling ass across the desert. George Clooney of NBC's 'ER' has also done several live remotes from Darfur that aren't so much journalistic segments as knock-offs of 'Save The Children' ads.
- The US media are fighting tooth and nail to avoid mentioning US genocide in Iraq and Afghanistan, but when it comes to Darfur, you'll hear them blurting out the G-word more times than you've had hot dinners. (see no.1)
- They've got their own goddamn' TV commercial now, f'cripesake, airing heavily during NBC 'Today' and 'Meet The Press'. Anyone here remember what happened to MoveOn and assorted other outfits who raised the cash to shoot and buy time for pro-peace PSAs and 'issue ads' against the US genocide in Iraq?
Comments (3)
I love it when people ask Bush for "action," or for a "policy." Just what do they think they're going to get, if not a war? What other "actions" or "policies" does he have in his repertoire?
As noted here earlier, the Gandhi of Wisconsin, Russ Feingold, recently demanded of Bush a "policy" on Somalia, and found under his Christmas tree -- "hail the Heav'n-born Prince of Peace!" -- a delightful little proxy war. Which is, no doubt, pretty much what Russ wanted, and maybe half of what the Israel lobby wanted.
I don't think the Lobby will be content with a proxy war in Darfur, though. They'll want Sam's boots on the ground there -- and I bet they get it.
Posted by MJS | December 29, 2006 5:42 PM
Posted on December 29, 2006 17:42
the darfur expedition
has left the building
its a UN baby blue project now
on to somalia ..
err thru proxy crusaders
Posted by js paine | December 29, 2006 8:12 PM
Posted on December 29, 2006 20:12
js paine writes:
the darfur expedition
has left the building
its a UN baby blue project now...
...and we all know what Dylan had to say about that:
"Look out, all those saints are comin' through..."
on to somalia ..
err thru proxy crusaders
Hot damn' diggety, another "humanitarian intervention"!
I'll never forget in '93, '94, the hacks on the nightly news constantly referring to the "humanitarian intervention" in Somalia, using the term so frequently that the more they used it, the more you knew it was bullshit, until it became flat-out comical.
It got to the point where I'd laugh at the Somalia reports -- which really annoyed the DW -- because I knew that immediately, if not sooner, I'd hear the phrase "humanitarian intervention".
It got to be like that old Monty Python sketch featuring Eric Idle as a film critic reviewing some big-budget spectacular who hammers on the word "expensive" more and more frequently until, by the end, the audience is totally howling.
Posted by Mike Flugennock | December 30, 2006 10:08 AM
Posted on December 30, 2006 10:08