George W. Bush Hates Poor People

How else can you possibly explain this?

The Bush Administration’s efforts to end the genocide in Darfur has been plagued by serious errors. Now, the President Bush is appointing Andrew Natsios as special envoy to Darfur to get things back on track.

Who is Andrew Natsios?

– As director of U.S. Agency for Intenational Development Natsios promised that the U.S. contribution to reconstruction of Iraq would be no more that $1.6 billion. Congress has already appropriated nearly $20 billion for reconstruction in Iraq. The CBO estimates the total cost of reconstruction will be between $50 and $100 billion.

– Natsios was the manager of Boston’s “Big Dig,” widely considered one of the most mismanaged public works projects in history.

Sounds like just the guy to help solve the “world’s worst humanitarian crisis.”

Anyone who was serious about stopping what this administration itself has called genocide would send someone competent to do the job, not merely someone connected.

Who would Jesus send to stop mass murder?

Comments

[shannon]

I don't understand why this country keeps supporting W. His approval rating went UP. Up, I say. Let's see. Iraq is a quagmire that will make View Nam look like a short little war. Bin Laden is still out there, despite W's ruminations about catching him being the #1 priority. People in New Orleans STILL don't have homes. The world hates us. Hugo Chavez calls him the devil, which isn't too far off. I don't think W hates just poor people. I think W hates anyone who's not rich and Republican.

[Steve the LLamabutcher]

Yes, yes, it's the US and Rummy and evil idiot BushCo that's stopping something being done in Sudan after the world (led by our moral betters at the EU) have stood so boldly to stop it! Gosh, they must have release hundreds of press releases demanding a stop to the genocide--if it's still going on, it must be Bush's fault! Imagine the shame inflicted on the genocidal regime in Sudan when it was elected to be on the UN Human Rights Commission.... And if the administration tried to act seriously to stop the genocide in the Sudan? Cue the ready-made scripts..."we're just after their ooooooooil!" And, "we're reliving Winston Churchill's imperial dreams because Bush read a dog-eared copy of The River War." The world's just not serious about stopping genocide, if it means the exercise of American force to do it. Better all these people die so we can blame America for being evil for not stopping it than America stop it and be evil for spreading its "imperial ambitions" to Africa. France and the EU (not to mention Hugo) want a counter-balance to American power? Fine. Fund it. Train it. And send it to do the dirty work itself. And why stop with Darfur? What about the war that's been raging in central Africa for the past 12 years? And the last question wouldn't include in the answer "a belt of explosives to blow up a bus with civilians" on it.

Let Hugo fix it with all the competence, prosperity, liberality and professionalism that Peronistas are known for.

(sorry for being intemperate and cranky this morning, Scott)

[scott]

This is one of those rare instances where it’s fairly clear-cut: we have called it genocide.

President">http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060919-4.html"target="_blank">President George W. Bush himself called it genocide.

If it is genocide, we have a moral obligation to stop it. Never again, remember?

We don’t get to hide behind Kofi Anan’s skirts and say, oh, we can’t go in! The UN won’t let us! People will get upset and say bad things about us! It’s a sovereign nation!

So was Iraq. And last I checked, we still have 140, 000 troops there.

And the fraudulent Weapons of Mass Destruction sleigh-o’-hand/rationale doesn’t even get brought up anymore. Now GWB, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld simply speak of what a hideous tyrant Saddam Hussein was--and he was. (Cheney also continues to lie about Saddam having links to Al Qaeda, although at least the press is finally starting to timidly think about calling him on his lying.)

Saddam was a horrible, horrible tyrant. But if we pretend that was a suitable reason to invade Iraq, then we do not get to pretend we don’t have the justification to take action in Darfur. If such things can be measured, Darfur is far more pressing morally--we know that in about a week and a half wholesale slaughter is going to begin again. We know it. And we can stop it.

And a Christian country would.

Or any country that walks the moral walk, rather than simply talking the talk. Just because other countries don't live up to their standars is no excuse for us to not even attempt to do so.

We're the shining city on the hill, remember? Or if we're not, we need to admit it and stop acting all holier than thou on the world stage. Shit or get off the pot.

Never again. Unless, you know, it’s a hassle.

[scott]

(sorry for being intemperate and cranky this morning, Scott)

Please. As Smashing Pumpkins sang in their best song, no apologies ever need be made.

Heck, I’d never stop being intemperate and cranky if I were a libertarian or a conservative and I saw the mockery the current administration had made out of my political philosophy--not to mention the mess they made out of my country--too. :)