You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Africa: Horn
WashPost: Bush should be tougher on Sudan
2004-04-26
EFL - Lead editorial
TWO WEEKS AGO, Sudan’s government agreed to a humanitarian cease-fire in Darfur... The cease-fire, however, has not been honored. Sudan’s Islamic and Arab government has a long history of denying humanitarian access to civilians as part of its long war with Christian and animist Africans in the south. It is applying those same tactics to Darfur, whose people, though Islamic, share the southerners’ aspiration for regional autonomy...
And the bad luck to be living on top of several kajillion barrels of oil ...
A final breakthrough may be announced in the next week or two. Although this progress owes much to international pressure -- and in particular, the Sudanese government’s fear that, after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush administration was serious about punishing rogue states —
[a sort of WaPo ’attaboy’ for Bush]
the United States and its allies seem reluctant to apply more pressure on the Darfur issue... They worry that excessive pressure will cause Sudan’s government to pull out of talks with the south
[and here they critized Bush for being too nuanced]
or that Sudan will refuse to permit U.N.-authorized monitors to implement an eventual north-south deal. But Sudan should not be allowed to get away with denying U.N. officials visas and refusing to live up to its cease-fire promises. If it can do that with impunity, it will assume that it has no need to live up to any promises it makes in a north-south settlement.
once again the WashPost surprizes - critizing Bush for being soft on Islamicist Sudan- in its lead editorial yet
Posted by:mhw

#5  Couldn't Bush just bite his lip and pretend to blink back tears? Worked on the WaPo up until four years ago...
Posted by: Pappy   2004-04-26 5:06:20 PM  

#4  critizing Bush for being soft on Islamicist Sudan- in its lead editorial yet

tap,tap, GREAT WAHRKS that needle jumped!
Posted by: Steve from Relto   2004-04-26 12:11:14 PM  

#3  US policy should be to chop up countries that cannot get along in order to avoid future genocides. It would send a nice message to the Shia and Sunni in Iraq. Sudan would be a perfect example and easy to rationalie to boot.
Posted by: ruprecht   2004-04-26 10:49:39 AM  

#2  it's not a surprise! It's just a chance to change the subject and attempt to bash bush while making themselves look impartial.

As I noted, if you saw the above fold of yesterday's WAPO, they have stopped pretending and are shamelessly shilling for the other side.

Personally, I'm kinda happy about it, as it shows how desperate they have become.
Posted by: anon   2004-04-26 9:23:32 AM  

#1  Bah. No matter WHAT happens, Bush'll be criticized. The only way to act around these people is to do what you think is right, and let them know not to delude themselves that what they thought or said had ANYTHING to do with your actions.
Posted by: Ptah   2004-04-26 9:15:57 AM  

00:00