After three years of fruitless negotiation and feckless rhetoric, it's time to go beyond unenforced U.N. resolutions to a new kind of resolution: the firm resolve to act.

Above are the words of Doctor Susan Rice... UN Ambassador designate. If this was 2002 you would suppose these words referred to Iraq. But no doubt she opposed any action beyond UN resolutions then .

Perhaps she was referring to Iran ? Nope .

She wants direct action beyond the fruitless negotiation ;feckless rhetoric, ;unenforced U.N. resolutions about Darfur.

She goes on to say



History demonstrates that there is one language Khartoum understands: the credible threat or use of force. .....


After swift diplomatic consultations, the United States should press for a U.N. resolution that issues Sudan an ultimatum: accept unconditional deployment of the U.N. force within one week or face military consequences. The resolution would authorize enforcement by U.N. member states, collectively or individually. International military pressure would continue until Sudan relented.


More evidence that the Bush Doctrine will remain the template for administrations to follow ?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/01/AR2006100100871.html

Those war mongering liberals. I wonder if Michael Moore is still saying "pinch me (http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2008-11-05)" over "an avowed anti-war candidate" being elected?

For the record (http://www.brookings.edu/interviews/2003/0206globalgovernance_rice.aspx?rssid=rices), in 2002 Rice said this about Colin Powell's presentation to the UN even though she did not go so far as to support the invasion:


"Well, I think he has proved that Iraq has these weapons and is hiding them, and I don't think many informed people doubted that."

More evidence that the Bush Doctrine will remain the template for administrations to follow ?Hello tom:

I musta missed it. When did Bush commit troops to stop the genocide in Darfur? When did he do ANYTHING to stop it?

excon

I don't recall the question being what did Bush do about Darfur, but he certainly took steps (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politics/how-about-some-credit-us-161327.html).


The United States has already flown in troops for the new force, promised $40 million in equipment and offered to pay 26 percent of the total cost of the operation. If others don’t step in quickly, Washington will need to twist their arms or do even more itself.

Hello Steve:

Steps, schmeps... Tell that to the dead. Obama isn't going to let genocides happen at all.

excon

PS> Ok, maybe not. The world is still a dangerous place.

Hello Steve:

Steps, schmeps... Tell that to the dead. Obama isn't going to let genocides happen at all.

Tell that to the dead, huh? That's what I've said all along about justification for going into Iraq... and what the left says about the result from going into Iraq. Which leads us to do we do something ourselves or do we rely on the international community, i.e. the "feckless rhetoric" of the UN to resolve the situation in Darfur? We're damned if we do and damned if we don't and I'm afraid Mr. Obama is going to find that out the hard way.

Obviously the comments referred to similar actions President Bush took in Iraq.

Again I will quote the specific passage in the Authorization bill passed by Congress :

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region

That brutal repression included the use of WMD on the civilian population that was just as genocidal as what is happening in Darfur.