What, the Jewish neoconspiracy is not to blame?

Bad Mustafa.

IN fairness to Kerry, I have heard him say the word "Darfur" twice. Of course, the pronounciation was a bit forced (dar-fyoor), but he did say it.

What is appalling is that Jimmah has not mentioned it, the Reverends Jesse and Al have not mentioned it, and no one else on the left seems to be saying or doing much at all. One would think they could even try to slam Bush on this issue, but they probably don't want to upset those French and Chinese oil contracts. For the left, it really is about the oil (as Prof. Instapundit is quick to point out).

Oh Kerry mentions it, alright, but he can't bring himself to say that the US should go in regardless of what the UN says and without UN approval, and since the UN won't approve (despite our best efforts), he's a bit stuck.

He won't press the issue because showing up the fecklessness of the UN doesn't serve his purposes at all.

I recently heard Charlie Rangle speaking out passionately about Darfur and even giving grudging credit to President Bush. But otherwise I haven't heard alot from the Left about this. They're too busy protesting their fantasy fascist state of AmeriKKKa.

Since Mr. Peanut gets most of his money from the Saudis, he will never criticize Muslims killing anyone else.

A forceful statement on Darfur, a stated tough policy on ending the genocide and the broader Muslim enslavement of Black people all across the Sahel might engender support in the Black community, however I don't expect Bush, whose disgusting father and brother, Fredo excuse me Neil, are on the Saudi payroll, to do that.

The Left and the multiculturalists repress consideration of Dafur because that genocide and the Hajjis' reaction to it demontrate the irrepressibility of our conflict with them. We have a burden now, the one that Kipling sang of: the reponsibility of power demands action.

jim, jackson has visited the refugee camps.

I skipped a week of reminding Orrin that the intolerable has been tolerated another week -- now another 2 weeks.

I understand who people dislike being reminded that the prediction they said couldn't happen has happened.

Admit it. None of us is willing to lift a finger for the Africans in Darfur. The only difference between me and the rest is that I don't think we should. (Though I have no objection if worldwide Islam, being a religion of peace, does it; it's just stupid for infidels to help our enemies.)

I believe it was Guy who argued that inaction was really just delay in getting things ramped up. That was 5 weeks ago.

At the rate things are moving, the international community will be ready to help Selassie resist Mussolini any year now.

Harry:

I don't mind your reminders--I enjoy pointing them out after even you have to ackjnowledge you were wrong, as with Bush invading Iraq.

We're already intervening in Darfur and saving lives and will become more involved.

It took us a while to get to Mussolini, but we did.

What I said about Iraq is that Bush should have been advised that he did not have enough infantry to complete a campaign in Iraq.

I was right.

He hasn't completed it, and with each day it appears less and less likely that it ever will be completed.

Anybody can attack. The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.

It's the ability the stay that keeps the attack from being pointless.

We had and have plenty. We won.

Apparently, Bush doesn't think so.

For Cuba, you demand outside troops to provide stability once the despot is gone.

For Iraq, you said you wanted the troops out once the despot was gone, although it is obvious that what would have resulted would have been a new (or perhaps not so very new) despotism.

We kept the troops in, but they have failed to provide stability, because too few and too hesitant

Cuba won't need troops--it will need a temporay police force. Like Haiti it will only even need the B team so there's no need to tie down Americans there.

Americans troops were destabilizing in Iraq precisely because we became the despot.