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
Hillary Clinton to Bush: Send Military to Darfur
2006-03-21
2008 presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, who says she was misled into voting for military intervention in Iraq, now wants the U.S. Air Force to lead an international coalition to stop the genocide in Darfur.
I think Special Forces would work better, but who am I to question the wisdom of her Highness
Mrs. Clinton, whose husband did nothing to stop the 1994 Rwandan genocide, sent a letter to Bush on Thursday where she urges:

"The United States can and must do more." Clinton then adds helpfully: "Below are 13 ways in which you can take action."

1. Convene a meeting of world leaders to address the crisis in Darfur.
2. Appoint a Presidential Envoy to Sudan.
3. Lead the U.N. Security Council in authorizing a peacekeeping mission in Darfur
4. Support the African Union.
5. Enforce the no-fly zone
6. Lead the U.N. Security Council in enforcing Resolution 1591
7. Lead the U.N. Security Council in enforcing Resolution 1564
8. Ensure that the U.N. Security Council listens to the experts.
9. Stop the violence from spreading into Chad
10. Call publicly for better behavior from Khartoum.
11. Work with the U.N. Security Council to address attacks by rebel groups in Darfur
12. Plan for reconstruction in Darfur
13. Support reconstruction in southern Sudan


The letter, posted to Hillary's official Senate web site, says Bush should "convene, without delay, a meeting between leaders of the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the African Union, and other interested world leaders, to map out an action-plan for Darfur."

Among the actions Hillary wants Bush to take: "Immediately enforce the ban on offensive overhead flights in Darfur that was established by Security Council Resolution 1591." Mrs. Clinton cited the expert military opinion of Sen. Joe Biden, who claims a U.S.-led coalition of the willing could enforce the no fly zone with "no more than 12 to 18 fighter planes and a handful of AWACs."
Add a dozen A-10s for ground attack and you got a plan. Oh, that's only if you plan on using them.
"Our continued failure on this issue is unacceptable," she declared.
Posted by:Steve

#56  Desert Blondie, hold on to your hat -- the mood swings get worse after. Add 3-6 months of inadequate sleep to the hormones finding new ways to swing, especially if you don't breast feed. (The hormones produced when you nurse are actually very calming for both mother and child.) Tell him now that you will mean it when you yell at him later, but that you really are sorry, and that you know it'll be hormones and exhaustion when he yells back in self-defense. And after that you'll look back on it all and remember all the good bits... the bad bits are just cost of living, I promise. *hug*
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-03-21 20:55  

#55  Badanov:

Interesting perspective! I'm not sure if the UN "piece" keepers or Billary will be the first in line to "attend" to the afflicted. Bill surely would feel their pain.
Posted by: Captain America   2006-03-21 19:44  

#54  Cut off all food aid to Darfur.

Once UN troops find there are starving wimmin and children they can be boning the UN will get enough troops for Darfur.

Plus if enough starve, the left can enjoy watching people die in a peaceful and euphoric way, just like Shiavo.

A twofer!
Posted by: badanov   2006-03-21 19:05  

#53  Thanks, tw. The Tsar is being a sweetheart, even though my mood swings are right up there with any teenage girl's.

I don't think either one of us can wait till October! ;)

(CA knows I'm just kidding, anyway. I just couldn't resist when he put it that way...)
Posted by: Desert Blondie   2006-03-21 17:42  

#52  Slow Joe Biden the plagiarist? I think they drilled too deep for those plugs - disabled all but the ego in the cranium
Posted by: Frank G   2006-03-21 17:29  

#51  Frank, I'm a man with big shoulders and such. Besides, depending on which audience Billary is playing to, one could find her doing the domestic chores.

And, by the way, shouldn't we not diminish the importance of those who do opt to stay home and do the real work?

For a moment there, I thought ya'll were taking exception to by comments about Commander Hairplugs Biden.
Posted by: Captain America   2006-03-21 17:03  

#50  Man, CA, talking about putting a kick me sign on your own back!
Posted by: Frank G   2006-03-21 16:33  

#49  Yes, but... Desert Blondie, in your condition you should get everything you want... immediately. And all the nice and loving things that haven't occurred to you yet, as well.
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-03-21 16:19  

#48  You know - it's that right of self-defense thing.

Just try to get a Democrat to admit any such thing exists.
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2006-03-21 16:02  

#47  Sure, Hill - we'll send troops to Darfur.

We've got plenty of extras being wasted in the Balkans. And we all know that the EUnichs can certainly handle any small problems in their own back yard. Them being superior and all that.

Asshole.

If anyone really wants to solve the problem in Darfur, let's arm the genocidees. Heavily.

You know - it's that right of self-defense thing.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2006-03-21 15:25  

#46  A woman's place is behind the stove cookin' dinner for hubby me and finding his my fuzzy pink slippers and newspaper trashy magazine.

Here, Captain, fixed it for ya. ;)
Posted by: Desert Blondie   2006-03-21 15:16  

#45  Hillary's got balls and she's willin to use 'em.
Posted by: wxjames   2006-03-21 15:12  

#44  Surely you mean, "in front of the stove," my dear Captain A. Behind the stove is where the stovepipe meets the chimney, and is of no use for cooking supper or anything else. Oh, and you forgot your /sarcasm tag.
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-03-21 14:47  

#43  Jules,

You forgot China's permission. Gotta have all the SC members or it's a nogo.
Posted by: AlanC   2006-03-21 14:47  

#42  Cant do it on a conventional scale. The man power just isnt available.

And she wants Bush to admit that so she can pound him for it, saying Iraq was a mistake &/or has been mismanaged.

Captain American, with all DUE respect, the rest deleted.

Let's just say I disagree strongly with that ridiculous last comment. ;-)
Posted by: lotp   2006-03-21 14:40  

#41  Biden? A military expert?

Dear God, the only thing he's expert at is getting hair plugs planted in his pate and blowing gas.
Posted by: Captain America   2006-03-21 14:39  

#40  First she's telling Billary what to do, now she's tellin' Bush what to do.

A woman's place is behind the stove cookin' dinner for hubby and finding his slippers and newspaper.
Posted by: Captain America   2006-03-21 14:36  

#39  You've just established an unjumpable gate, Jules. The [non-British] EU countries aren't actually going to do anything -- they prefer playing the Pontius Pilate role, wringing their hands and watching the disaster. But that absolutely is the best answer to Senator Clinton's (or anyone posturing for effect's) adventurism: "Show us your international coalition!"
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-03-21 14:01  

#38  A bigger error: make that 6000-10000 per MONTH. Third blog mistake of the day-I better wake up a bit before writing more.
Posted by: Jules   2006-03-21 13:53  

#37  Good point. Sorry. MacNails.
Posted by: Jules   2006-03-21 13:50  

#36  Please refrain from putting us Brits in the same category as France , Jules :)
But in essence your arguement is quite correct
Posted by: MacNails   2006-03-21 13:39  

#35  For a long time, people in Darfur were dying at a rate of 6000-10000 per day. More meetings and resolutions will ensure they continue dying.

I can't stand Hillary, but if she has great persuasive power and can get the commitment of France, Germany, Italy, Russia and Britain for IMMEDIATE MILITARY ACTION against the Sudanese janjaweed, then great. No talk, no resolutions, no meetings-just military action. Dems have been whining since the begining of the Iraq War about building consensus and getting our international partners to join us? OK-let's so what you can do, Hil. As soon as France and company commit bombs, planes and soldiers, we're all ears.
Posted by: Jules   2006-03-21 13:17  

#34  An obvious attempt to out Condi, Condi and further solidify ethnic opinion and votes against President Bush and the republicans. The people of the Empire State should rightly be very proud of their US Senator from Arkanasas. I would add one more to the list:

14. Anticipating the total failure of points 1 through 13, plan to henceforth and forever more stay the hell out of African politics.
Posted by: Besoeker   2006-03-21 12:33  

#33  Iraq, Afganistan and maybe Iran were/will be due to a percieved threat to this country and its people therefore justified. Darfur is not a threat to us we are not the worlds police.
Posted by: BrerRabbit   2006-03-21 11:56  

#32  But we're supposed to start doing it with our much diminished forces today?

That's called: Writing a check with your mouth and expecting someone else's ass to cash it.
Posted by: Dreadnought   2006-03-21 11:48  

#31  Did Scrappleface hijacked Newsmax?
Posted by: Swiss Tex   2006-03-21 11:33  

#30  This is nuts. We're about to start all-out bombing raids on Iran - and Hillary wants to have the Air Force carry out sorties over the Sudan? We did not do any of this humanitarian war stuff when we had a force three times the size during the Cold War. But we're supposed to start doing it with our much diminished forces today? While our people are flying missions in both Afghanistan and Iraq. And prepping for the big game in North Korea and Iran?
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2006-03-21 11:26  

#29  That pic draws 'em like bees to honey.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-03-21 11:25  

#28  So, how soon after intervention can we count on them shouting, "quagmire!"? If the democrats are not prepared to get some actual killing done, they can STFU. Intervention is not enough. We need to snuff janjaweed with some AC-130 weed whackers.
Posted by: Zenster   2006-03-21 11:18  

#27  Too cruel, doc. For the Darfurians, I mean.
Posted by: mojo   2006-03-21 11:14  

#26  So what are the Darfor-force advocates saying? We should redeploy away from the border of Iran and put all these forces in the middle of the Sahara instead?
Posted by: Phil   2006-03-21 11:13  

#25  I say,"Send Hillary to Darfur!"
Posted by: doc   2006-03-21 11:08  

#24  What, no exit strategy? This is a plan? WTF!
Posted by: john   2006-03-21 11:07  

#23  "Maybe someone can explain why involvement in Iraq is bad and involvement in Darfur is good?"

well i supported our involvement in Iraq, but heres one difference. Theres actually an ongoing genocide in Darfur we could prevent, while in Iraq the genocide was not ongoing in 2003 (though of course there were still dissidents being killed)
Posted by: liberalhawk   2006-03-21 11:01  

#22  Bill the the blow and no show thingee.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-03-21 10:57  

#21  Will the military be allowed to kick butt? Or is it just blow and no show?
Posted by: CrazyFool   2006-03-21 10:50  

#20  Did I miss something or did she omit the step of getting Congressional war making authority?

Oh yeah, does she say WHY the UN is going to be anymore staunch on Darfur then they have been up to now? Where's her appeal to the EU?

This is nothing more than typical Democrap BS. Blah.
Posted by: AlanC   2006-03-21 10:49  

#19  1. What is the intended out come?
2. What force structure are you willing to commit and for how long?
3. How are you going to sustain the logistical support for any force deployed?
4. What rules of engagement are the uniformed military permitted?
5. When things go wrong are you going to pull out immediately or make adjustments to achieve the goals specified in point 1?
6. How many lives both our military and Sudanese civilians can we count before you think its a good idea to execute point 5?

Just asking. Since these are the items you and your backers have been whining about for a couple years. We hold you to the same standards you have held others before cause we don't believe in one set of rules for others and a separate set of rules for you.
Posted by: Therese Omavimp4314   2006-03-21 10:44  

#18  Because, of course, wielding supreme, unilateral power is okay provided that the right woman party is wielding it. God, I hate "Democrats".
Posted by: BH   2006-03-21 10:42  

#17  The Hillary Presidential campaign started.
Posted by: pescador   2006-03-21 10:40  

#16  So Hillary wants to send our military, allegedly over-streched, worn-out and demoralized, to interfere in the internal affairs of a nation which poses "no immediate threat" to America? Hah and Bah!

If you replace the African names and UN Resolution numbers in Hillary's 13 Step Plan with Iraq related ones, it sounds exactly the process we went thru that "misled" the Democrats into Iraq. Maybe someone can explain why involvement in Iraq is bad and involvement in Darfur is good?
Posted by: SteveS   2006-03-21 10:32  

#15  ArmyLife I was kinda making fun of the endless goosechase the Apache's were put thru during the late Balkans conflict. I think it would be senselss to do the same thing.

I need quality sarc tags, perhaps Meme Depot has 'em.
Posted by: 6   2006-03-21 10:29  

#14  Hillary would probably be a good foreign policy president. She's a real bitch. She has lot's of anger with Bill she needs to work out. And she would not be able to get anything done domestically with any conceivable congress that would be elected. She'd be sure to start a war with Islam, and that could work out OK.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-03-21 10:20  

#13  Cant do it on a conventional scale. The man power just isnt available. You can not send planes to bomb without ground controllers. This is a by product of the Serbian Air War. Best case would be to put Special Ops in and have them call in the air support. That, initself, is a risky option.

NATO troops are in Afghanistan right now... they will not come to join us in this UN endevor.

# 12 and 13.... I dont even want to think of the monetary sinkhole that will become.

Someone mentioned sending an Apache(s) helicopter to hang out there. Your right, this has an awesome effect but the logistics to keep them flying is no small feet and would require a base. Which would requre security, airfield, and lots of other things just to support an aviation unit.

Should something be done? Yes. Can we do it right now? No.
Posted by: armylife   2006-03-21 10:19  

#12  The left finds it easiest to advocate for war where there is no US interest.

Must be more, you know, noble.
Posted by: eLarson   2006-03-21 10:14  

#11  she should go herself .. One gaze from that sour faced , snotty bitch will have the enemy turned to stone ..
Posted by: MacNails   2006-03-21 10:12  

#10  This is just Hillary trying to get to the right of W. Political opportunism. Probably wants the troops used in Darfur to come from Iraq.

Posted by: SR-71   2006-03-21 10:10  

#9  I don't like Hillary one bit, but she at least acknowledges that we have a military to use. Can not say that for the rest of the Democrats except Lieberman or Zell.
Posted by: djohn66   2006-03-21 10:04  

#8  She forgot to add:

14. Issue a strongly worded letter of comdemnation

This is all a bunch of Hillary-speak. In other words highly nuanced BS. Nowhere is there a step for, Take Action to end Massacres.
Posted by: TomAnon   2006-03-21 09:50  

#7  One sniper team could solve the problem, just recind the order on assassinations and get the right one or two guys and the problem will resolve itself.

Either that or support partitioning the Sudan and watch the North clean up their act to avoid foreign involvement.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2006-03-21 09:46  

#6  Of course, then you have to get into the nitty-gritty details of HOW.... ;)

(For one, re: Hillary Clinton's citing Biden in using "no more than 12 to 18 fighter planes and a handful of AWACs" -- those would have to be fighter-bombers, presumably with more close air support capabilities.)
Posted by: Edward Yee   2006-03-21 09:42  

#5  Joe Biden's a military expert?
I did not know that....
Posted by: tu3031   2006-03-21 09:37  

#4  I'd feel better about the plan if it had a step called "9. Kill the m-----f-----s." Because that's what we're talking about, not "peacekeeping."
Posted by: Matt   2006-03-21 09:35  

#3  like i said, Hilarys got potential. Whats impressive is that she doesnt see a need for another UN resolution. Its striking in fact. What she needs to work on is getting better military advisors. I like Joe Biden, but a military expert hes not.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2006-03-21 09:30  

#2  Bush to Hillary: Okay, the first thing YOU do is go to the Pentagon, and ask them what they think of your brilliant schemes. Get it in writing, with their names signed to it. Literally everybody at the Pentagon who supports your idea should sign on.

Then forward that document to us. We'll get back to you about it.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2006-03-21 09:29  

#1  Often just the presence of a force (say Apache heliocopters) can turn the tide in a regional conflict, if given enough time (9 months). Linking the posited Apache force with the threat of infantry is a war winner.

/BC
Posted by: 6   2006-03-21 09:28  

00:00