I simply am aghast at the comments made today by President Bush in an interview to the BBC. It amazes me how he says things without ever realizing how tortured and twisted his ‘logic’ is, or how horrible his policies have been around the globe.
Not for the first time do I write about Darfur. There is genocide ravaging this region of Sudan, and the world community has been slow in taking steps that truly will combat the core reasons for the carnage. But after reading President Bush’s comments today I can honestly say I have never been more angry over the lack of a reasonable and justified response from the United States to that issue than I am now.
First, let me post the question and response.
Frei: I’ll get on to that in a minute. But, I mean, genocide is just a loaded – it’s such an important word. And you have committed troops – American troops around the world in other cases throughout… Afghanistan. Why not in this case?
Mr Bush: Well, that’s a good question. I mean, we’re committing equipment, you know? Training, help, movement. I think a lot of the folks who are concerned about America into another Muslim country. Some of the relief groups here just didn’t think the strategy would be as effective as it was. I mean, actually, believe it or not, listen to people’s opinions. And chose to make this decision. It’s a decision that I’m now living with. And it’s a decision that requires us to continue to rally the conscience of the world and get people to focus on the issue. You know, you’re right. I mean, we sent marines into Liberia, for example, to help stabilise the country there. And Liberia’s on my itinerary where I’ll meet with the first woman, you know, elected president in Africa – history. And – but, I just made the decision I made.
Bush’s rationale is partly due to his thinking that perhaps we should not send troops to yet another Muslin country. Well if we had not sent troops into a needless war in Iraq that was promoted on false and misleading arguments from his own White House, we still might have some credibility left in the world to combat real problems such as Darfur. It is exactly because of the reckless war that President Bush created in a Muslim nation that now is his argument for not going into Darfur to assist in ending genocide!
How did the BBC reporter not reach out and slap President Bush across the face?
Then later in the interview this exchange took place as reported by the BBC.
Asked by Matt Frei if he felt he had got the credit he deserved for investment in Africa, Mr Bush replied: “I’m not one of these guys that really gives a darn about opinion. What I really care about is are we saving lives?”
No Mr. President, you do not care about saving lives or you would save the sanctimonious line of crap and actually do something to fight for the ones you labeled earlier in the interview as being the victims of genocide. You said in the interview that “I think a lot of the folks who are concerned about America into another Muslim country” as if to say opinion matters now in Darfur, but we all know public opinion counted for nothing in regards to your policy goals when the topic was Iraq. You seem to act regardless of public opinion so why not now? And in this case everyone knows that Darfur is a real crisis, not a fabricated one for political purposes. Your double-speak about public opinion is utter bullshit.
The total disregard that Bush has for the opinions of others is exactly the reason we have our asses getting kicked in Iraq. The whole world marched and pleaded not to invade Iraq but oil interests won the day in the White House. He selectively listened to only those who were advocating an invasion policy of Iraq. Now there is a true moral and humane reason to intervene in the genocide in Darfur, and there is no desire to fit our foreign policy to the misery that everyone knows is taking place but seems unable to stop.
Really, how did the BBC reporter not slap President Bush across the face?