Moveon.Org is calling for President Bush to send troops into Sudan:

On Sunday, tens of thousands of concerned Americans will gather at the Save Darfur rally in Washington DC to demand that Congress and President Bush call for a real United Nations peacekeeping force to protect civilians and stop the genocide — now.

George Clooney is complaining that the U.S. is waiting too long to send troops into Sudan:

“Is the American government slow to act? Of course we’re slow to act, we always are,” Clooney said…

And here is a picture from the “antiwar” protest this weekend in New York City:

So now they want to send troops into an oil-rich, predominantly Muslim country, with suspected ties to al-Qaida and WMDs, that’s experiencing genocide?

How very chicken-hawkish of them.

Update: NY Sun:

We’d be remiss, however, if we didn’t say that we also hope that the Darfur rally yesterday helps to illuminate the hypocrisy of some of those on the left. They want military action now to oppose a genocidal regime in Sudan and to protect its victims. Yet they opposed military action in Iraq to oust a regime, in that of Saddam Hussein, that had engaged in ethnic cleansing of Iraqi Kurds and Shiites and had rained scud missiles on Israeli cities.

This Darfur double standard was underscored by the list of announced speakers for yesterday’s “Save Darfur” rally. They included at least three members of Congress - Nancy Pelosi, Donald Payne, and Michael Capuano - who voted against the liberation of Iraq. Mr. Payne, a Democrat of New Jersey, has reportedly gone so far as to say of the Iraq war, “I have never seen such a misuse of our power.” Ms. Pelosi, a Californian who is the Democratic leader in the House, has endorsed Rep. John Murtha’s demand for an immediate American withdrawal from Iraq.

The scheduled speakers at yesterday’s Save Darfur rally also included the Reverend Al Sharpton and the Democrat who lost in 1997 to Mayor Giuliani, Ruth Messinger. Rev. Sharpton and Ms. Messinger have marched against the Iraq war in New York behind the banner of United for Peace and Justice, an anti-Israel front group whose steering committee includes a representative of the Communist Party USA.

Just to underscore the double standard, Rev. Sharpton reportedly marched against the Iraq war in New York on Saturday, then marched in Washington on Sunday for more intervention in Sudan. Even worse, the Saturday march was organized by United for Peace and Justice, which has moved well beyond opposing the Iraq war. It now opposes any American action against Iran. “United for Peace and Justice opposes any military action against Iran, as well as covert action and sanctions,” the organization’s Web site says. The site includes letters for activists to send to Congress, saying, “Iran does not present a threat to the United States” and calling for taking away Israel’s nuclear weapons.

____________________

Others:
Michelle reminds us to not question their “patriotism”.

1. Did the liberals invent the word oxymoron? Their actions always fit the bill.

   Comment by Judith — 1:07 am
   

2. Does anyone really expect any logic out of the left?

   Comment by Pamela — 1:55 pm
   

3. The left would support American troops in Sudan for about…3 hours. That’s how long it would take for the first Sudanese to go before an al-Reuters camera and tearfully claim that the big bad American troops killed her children and slaughtered villagers. By the next day we’d have “US out of Sudan” protests orchestrated by ANSWER taking place.

   Comment by Tom the Redhunter — 2:21 pm
   

4. I suggest a boycott of all of Clooney’s movies (actually of Hollywood entirely, really) There should be a massive grassroots mobilization to contact his agent and inform him of a massive “Clooney boycott” I am so disgusted with him I think I will track down the contact info of his agent and post it…..

   Comment by Nancy — 2:51 pm
   

5. You can be an antiwar protester and be against a specific war, you know. There’s nothing contradictory in wanting to be out of Iraq while favoring military action in Darfur. Suggesting some inherent contradiction is nothing more than rhetoric. And sending in peacekeeping troops, while there will certainly be some violence, is quite a different thing than declaring war on a country. These are not apples to apples being compared here.

   Comment by Alan Hartung — 4:19 pm
   

6. For anyone interested in a “Tell-A-Friend”, email grapevine grassroots activity, I suggest a gratifying one would be to encourage as many people as you know to contact George Clooney’s agent or his production company and tell them you are boycotting all of Clooney’s work.

   Imagine…. a ton of mail arriving on a daily basis informing George that his truly ignorant views of just about everything have finally gotten on everybody’s last nerve with the result being, in the not too distant future, he will be speaking to an audience of one - his reflection. Or, he could possibly speak to his Italian neighbors in Como, who won’t understand him because he doesn’t speak Italian, even though he spends all of his time there. Which brings up another interesting point, if he is so concerned with the state of affairs in other countries… WHY hasn’t he bothered to learn the language of the country where he now resides?

   You can mail George at: George Clooney c/o Maysville Productions 4000 Warner Blvd, Building 81, Room 117, Burbank , CA 91522,

   OR George Clooney c/o Creative Artists Agency 9830 Wilshire Blvd Beverly Hills, CA 90212

   Comment by Nancy — 10:09 pm
   

7. as a american with dark pigmentation,veteran,conserative,devoted to my President and V,President, lover of all things American,unending supporter of the greatest military in the world,piss on these liberal, hate america crowd who wants our guys to be defenders of their hand picked wars;let Africa take care of themselves and have the rich liberals give their millions to finance any interventions in these cesspools. GOD BLESS AMERICA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

   Comment by pamela — 8:48 am
   

8. Great post. Hilarious.

   Comment by The Gentle Cricket — 9:31 am
   

9. Actually, I support George Clooney in this instance…and if Cindy Sheehan came out in support of intervention in Darfur, I’d support that too. Clooney may be wrong on other issues, but he’s correct in saying that we should be doing more in Sudan.

   Comment by The Gentle Cricket — 9:35 am
   

10. Did you notice how every liberal was just itching to get into a war back when Boy Clinton was president? As the Slickmeister well knew, it’s all about the presentation.

    Getting a liberal into a warlike mood is easy. All you have to do is insert the word “genocide” into the conversation, such as “the government of Moronica is practicing genocide against its citizens/neighbors/minorities/house pets and -voila!- the moonbat horde is foaming at the mouth, ready for someone else to enlist in our nations peacekeeping forces.

    Comment by trentk269 — 10:16 am
    

11. Dammit, for years I’ve thought that if the U.S. absolutely HAS to be Mommy and Daddy to the world, the Sudan is one place we NEED to be administering spankings. But I don’t want Clooney and MoveOn.org agreeing with me!

    Comment by Radish — 11:27 am
    

12. The lefties realize that the world public isn’t listening to them whine about Iraq anymore. They want us to go into Darfur so they can then whine about us invading them too. If a liberal whines alone in the forest, will they make a sound? Well, we know they’ll keep whining ’till someone goes by and hears it.

    Comment by Jim U — 4:46 pm
    

13. Except, of course, that Darfur is actively experiencing genocide whereas the WMD stuff and Al-Queda ties with Iraq were, of course, never actually proven or discoverred after we invaded. So, yeah, bad metaphor.

    But, once again, being right is more important than human rights. It’s better to let everyone in Darfur die than side with the moonbats.

    Comment by JN — 7:42 pm
    

14. Currently support for the war in Iraq is bouncing around in the 32% range. (USA Today/Gallup Poll)

    That’s a breathtaking drop from the 76% level of support President Bush enjoyed just after the invasion.

    What’s significant, is how many of those 4.4 out of 10 Americans who turned against the war voted for the President in the last election. Do the numbers.

    No, opposition to this war is not anti-Bush – it’s even not anti-war. It’s simply that most Americans no longer trust this president to lead them into combat.

    Comment by Patrick Shiplett — 10:05 pm
    

15. “No, opposition to this war is not anti-Bush – it’s even not anti-war. It’s simply that most Americans no longer trust this president to lead them into combat. ”

    You misinterpret the poll numbers. Bush’s low approval numbers reflect his base’s disappointment in his handling of things like immigration and spending. The previous poll numbers on the war included a lot of liberal politicians who support things when they’re popular and don’t support things when they’re not. Once the Left thought the war was unpopular, they dropped their “support”.

    As for Bush’s approval ratings, it has more to do with him alienating his base (people like me) on spending and immigration. But that doesn’t translate into votes for Democrats by a long shot.

    But keep your false hopes alive.

    Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 10:11 pm
    

16. Wasn’t it just 6-8 months ago the left was all over Bush saying you screwed up going into Iraq, we now need to invade Iran but we can’t because we are streatched to thin. Make up your damn minds!

    Comment by TICKETPLEASE — 9:00 am
    

17. Thanks for your thoughtful response, Rainmaker. President Bush won 52% of the vote in 2004. Yet only 32% of Americans currently support his leadership in Iraq

    That number does not include the dissatisfaction of voters (like you) over spending and immigration. Those are separate grievances – and you’re absolutely right to be concerned.

    Rush Limbaugh, Bill Kristol, Tony Snow and The Wall Street Journal agree with the American people: badly concieved war. BTW, wars require more, not less, spending…even if you hide it outside of the budget. God bless our troops.

    Comment by Patrick Shiplett — 11:16 am
    

18. “BTW, wars require more, not less, spending…even if you hide it outside of the budget.”

    That’s obviously not the spending to which I’m referring. I’m speaking of unconstitutional spending on vote-buying social programs and gubmint handouts.

    Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 11:38 am
    

19. President Bush won 52% of the vote in 2004. Yet only 32% of Americans currently support his leadership in Iraq.

    Whoa! If he’s not careful, he’s not gonna get re-elected in 2008!

    Comment by Jonathan — 1:20 pm
    

20. […] Related: Are They Really Anti-War or Just Anti-Bush? No Comments » […]

    Pingback by Texas Rainmaker » Is Darfur an Imminent Threat? — 11:30 am
    

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

You must be logged in to post a comment.