Cheadle’s intentions are probably good, but this article ignored many issues.

Gordo: Alex, I'll take "Actors Who Don't Know What The "F" They're Talking About" for $500...

Alex: And the answer is: "The road to Hell is paved with these":

Gordo: "What are GOOD INTENTIONS?"

Alex: Gordon, right you are!

Gordo

Melmac

This is so typical of the hypocritical left. The only time they actually support US military action is in situations where the interests of this country are not threatened in any way. Yet, when the interests of this country, or its allies, are directly threatened, they, out of either embarrassment, guilt or out-right hatred for their own country, automatically oppose military action.

Liberal logic. What a concept!

This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.- Neal Boortz.

For goodness sakes - on Darfur

A few months ago after seeing the daily e-mail from leftist friends (none who give or gave  a hoot about Iraq, ever said a word about Rwanda, the Congo(millions), or Afghanistan when the Taliban took over, etc.), demanding letters be written to President Bush demanding that he do something, I called the SAVE DARFUR folks. I asked a simple question. "Your suggested letters to the president - that he do more. How would describe his action so far?" The answer was quite surprising, coming from a young lady who obvioulsy was not a confirmed Bush fan to say the least. She said - he is the world's leader in the effort to stop this tragedy. She said, without him leading, nothing would be being done. She added - we are asking him to do even more, because he can - and no one else will lead but the the US.

Even the anti-Bush LA Times published an Edtorial about a year ago, in which they acknowledged: "The United States, which is pushing hard for U.N. and even NATO intervention in Sudan, needs to make clear that the African Union's international credibility will be destroyed if it doesn't approve a U.N. peacekeeping mission. That credibility is vital in a region where most governments are heavily reliant on foreign donors."

On a few occassions, I believe I remember, that they (LA Times) acutally slipped and sort of suggested that Bush has performed well here, compared to others (we speak not their blessed name).

But usually, they've been more than open to publishing full blown elephant dung columns by the likes of James Traub (NY Times), who believes that Africa was a land of milk and honey under Clinton and Annan - until Bush became president, and suddenly all turned to vinager and death; and  Jeffrey D. Sachs wrote a column titled, "Africa's suffering is Bush's Shame," in May, 2007.

Oh yea? People say the most surprising things - things that the media would never want the larger public to be aware of (The Guardian, 2003):

"You'll think I'm off my trolley when I say this, but the Bush administration is the most radical - in a positive sense - in its approach to Africa since Kennedy," [Bob]Geldof [of Live 8 fame] told the Guardian.

The neo-conservatives and religious rightwingers who surrounded President George Bush were proving unexpectedly receptive to appeals for help, he said. "You can get the weirdest politicians on your side."

Former president Bill Clinton had not helped Africa much, despite his high-profile visits and apparent empathy with the downtrodden, the organiser of Live Aid, claimed. "Clinton was a good guy, but he did fuck all."

Lord Alli, the aid activist who is accompanying Geldof on the trip organised by the UN children's aid agency Unicef, echoed his praise of the Bush administration.

"Clinton talked the talk and did diddly squat, whereas Bush doesn't talk, but does deliver," Lord Alli said.

Where are the syndicated columns and the lead editorials and the 60 Minute specials on CBS that are titled: "While Clinton squirmed - 800,000 died here, 60,000 died here, 2.5 to 3 million died here?" Where are the one's titled: "While Clinton did next to nothing, Africa's HIV/Aids problem turned into a Pandemic?" Even Clinton has admitted to as much. Why is it that last spring, when Newsweek puts out a special issue - "AIDS at 25" - they find it comfy to pound on Ronald Reagan for what he supposedly never said publically, while completly ignoring the largest program in history to tackle the problem (Bush's $15 billion+ PEPFAR), yet find plenty of room for several full pages giving Bill Clinton the chance to pat himself on the back for what he decided to do after he left office?

I just want to know - where were all these people when:

Congo - The conflict was sparked in August 1998 when Rwanda and Uganda invaded DR Congo. The 5-year war cost more than 3 million lives – most prior to 2001. The BBC referred to it as genocide of 2.5 million, 2 million people displaced and 16 million going hungry.

 Afghanistan – While numbers may be difficult to come by (one source note 50-60,000 died between 1996 and 2001), we should not forget the civilian massacres, killings to intimidate, mass detentions and torture, and public executions perpetrated on Afghanistan’s as the Taliban seized control and tightened it’s grip during the late 90’s and into 2000, as the world sit idly on it’s hands and did nothing.

Reference: James Traub, LA Times, September 17, 2006 in a full page featured opinion column titled, "The World's Elder Statesman" seeking to save the legacy of Kofi Annan, while laying the blame for all the world's problems (including Africa) at the feet of President Bush. 

From 1997 through 2000, the world was largely at peace, none of the horrific civil wars in the Third World rose to genocidal proportions, and the White House was occupied by an internationalist Democrat. Then, in rapid succession, a unilaterally-minded Republican took office, 9/11 shattered the interval of peace, the U.S. invaded Iraq in the teeth of international opposition and one of Sudan's interminable ethnic conflicts erupted into a scorched-earth war.

Grab a cup of coffee and throw it at these jerks.

Sierra Leone – Between 1996 and 2002, some 75,000 lives were lost in the conflict. In Jan. 1999 alone 6,000 civilians were brutally killed in one city. Many may remember the army, often comprised of young boys who went around raping and chopping off people’s arms – “short sleeves or long sleeves sir?”