"It's Not a Genocide So We'll Ignore It" <em>versus</em> "It's a Genocide, But We'll Ignore It Anyway"

Friday, November 04, 2005

"It's Not a Genocide So We'll Ignore It" versus "It's a Genocide, But We'll Ignore It Anyway"



As a follow-up to Eugene's post on Darfur, there was also this NPR story on "Morning Edition" reporting that the Bush administration seems to have made conciliatory gestures to Sudan at a time when the violence and suffering in Darfur continues.

The NPR story contained a soundbite of Madeleine Albright, who criticized the Bush administration even as she acknowledged her own guilt in failing to urge a forceful response to the 1994 genocide in Rwanda.

As I listened, I thought: What a sad pair of administrations we have here. I'm not sure which one is worse in the genocide category (in most other categories, it's a slam-dunk).

The Clinton brigade skillfully engaged in language-avoidance games, fearing that acknowledging that a "genocide" was underway would compel them to take swift U.S. action.

The Bush gang quite boldly acknowledges genocide in Darfur, yet seems quite contented to shrug its shoulders, sigh, and pour another martini. (Correction: I'm sure the Bushies have someone else pour their martinis.) Well, they should be forced to look at this photo while they drink 'em.

0 comments in "It's Not a Genocide So We'll Ignore It" versus "It's a Genocide, But We'll Ignore It Anyway"

Post a Comment

 
"It's Not a Genocide So We'll Ignore It" versus "It's a Genocide, But We'll Ignore It Anyway" | Demagogue Copyright © 2010