Bush To Appease Sudan Government
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, Barack, Bush, McCain, The World, TransparencySaying one thing and doing another has been the hallmark of this administration, but the ring is particularly hollow when it comes to Bush’s nonsensical “appeasement” talk.
Take our handling of the Sudan situation for example…
Sometime in the next few weeks, a special envoy of President Bush plans to meet with Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, whose government sheltered Osama bin Laden and pursued a scorched-earth policy in southern Sudan that resulted in more than 2 million deaths.Bashir’s government has been accused by Bush of participating in a “genocide” in Darfur, the only U.S. government use of such a strong accusation. Yet Richard S. Williamson’s visit to Khartoum follows a series of direct contacts by senior Bush administration officials with the Sudanese president, including Secretaries of State Colin L. Powell and Condoleezza Rice, Rice’s deputies, and several special presidential envoys.
Bush has spoken to or exchanged letters with Bashir on numerous occasions, underscoring how White House policy has departed from his pointed public call to shun talks with radical tyrants and dictators. His appointees have also pursued aggressive diplomacy with North Korea and Libya and have even conducted limited business with Cuba, Syria and Iran.
Will right-wing partisans jump on Bush from talking to Sudan like they jump on Obama for saying he’d talk to Iran’s leaders? And what about McCain? Will he decry this move by Bush as naive?
Folks, talk is cheap, and the more Bush and company try to make us believe that they’re these hard liners in some cases, while doing the exact opposite in other cases, reveals just how badly a different approach is needed.
Regardless of who the president is come January 2009, let’s hope they realize that this nonsensical doublespeak just doesn’t pass the smell test.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 27th, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Barack, Bush, McCain, The World, Transparency. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
May 27th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Rubbish. Everyone knows it isn’t appeasement if a Republican does it.
May 27th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
The 27th of each month is dedicated to providing information on the genocide in Darfur. I invite read my post entitled “am i not human? wanted ahmad haran & ali kushayb for crimes against humanityâ€
http://sojournersplace.blogspot.com/2008/05/am-i-not-human-wanted-ahmad-haran-ali.html
SjP
May 27th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Grant, you are an imbicile. There is active genocide going on in Darfur. Sitting back and refusing to discuss it will just ensure it continues. A year ago all of the Libs were saying that we should be in Darfur instead of Iraq. Now, when something is being done to try to stop the violence and allow a multinational force to maintain the peace, you tools are bitching and moaning about “appeasement”.
Definition of appeasement is “the policy of giving in to the demands of a hostile or aggressive power…” (yourdictionary.com). It’s akin to giving a bully your lunch money to keep him from kicking your ass today, and still having to worry about him tomorrow.
If you read the entire article, you will find that, prior to Darfur, the Bush administration was successfull in establishing peace. After the genocide in Darfur started, peace would’ve been restored if it were not for several local warlords that Bashir could not control.
That is negotiation, not appeasement. When you appease someone, you get nothing in return – it’s one-sided. Negotiations result in benefits for both sides.
What Obamama wants to do with Iran is engage in talks that will only serve to legitimize M.A. without getting any consessions from him….In other words, Iran gets the benefit without having to shelve their nuclear weapons program, quit their support of terrorists that are killing Iraqis and American soldiers and they can keep perpetuating the conflict between Palestine and Isreal. That sounds more than a little “one-sided” to me….
Put down the Kool-aid and take 2 steps back!!
May 27th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
As a (graduate) student of international relations, word choice, especially in the international arena where they must often be translated, is critical. In addition, some words have become super-charged over the years to near epithet status. “Crusade” and “appeasement” are two of those words, both carelessly applied by President Bush with the bravado of a schoolyard bully.
Whether we like it or not, these lapses in decorum must stop. America can no longer swagger about the world and expect compliant behavior by either ally or enemy.
Much of the world no longer listens to us. We need to take great care in cultivating those that still do.
May 27th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Rich,
First off, can the name calling. It’s not welcome here.
Second, I think it’s pretty obvious that Grant was being facetious.
Third, people are talking about “appeasement” because Bush used that in reference to simply talking to Iran, but he seems to have no problem doing the exact same thing in other countries. His record and rhetoric are inconsistent, and he’s gaming the future arguments in favor of only benefitting his point of view on the subject. That’s not only dishonest, it’s dangerous.
So next time, instead of accusing people of drinking the Kool-Aid, you better check to see what’s in your own cup first.
May 27th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
He did? When was this?
May 27th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
From WhiteHouse.gov:
“Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”
May 27th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
I meant to add that he connects Iran a couple of grafs later.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Ah, of course, Rob. I forgot about that oft used rhetorical device- separating two thoughts by several paragraphs and assuming the reader/listener will connect the two ideas.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Not sure if that’s sarcasm, C Stanley. The thread actually begins at paragraph 16 (”The fight against terror and extremism… “) and finishes at paragraph 22 (”… America stands with you in breaking up… “).
It’s quite plain from the context what the president wanted people to take away from that portion of the speech.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
There is no separation by several paragraphs in the quote Rob cited. Everyone outside of blind Bush supporters knows full well what he meant. The only oft used device here is the one that Bush loves so dearly where he aims verbal barbs and foolish accusations towards someone in such a way that everyone knows who is being attacked but he has “plausible deniability”. And then he has his acolytes who will follow the party line and say that he didn’t name someone so he just didn’t mean what everyone is saying he meant.