I'm glad the neocons haven't been more involved in the events in Darfur, because I have to believe that if they "cared" more and got us more involved, things there would invariably worsen.

http://www.brooklynrail.org/2006-10/fiction/he-named-his-son-rumsfeld

Its wrong to imply Bush has a double standard. He has only one standard: what is coming out of his mouth at that moment is the only truth (regardless of how it contradicts anything else he has said). Its quite refreshing really and so much less cluttured that worrying about consistency.

Hey, one foreign policy inconsistency at a time; Bush is busy this week trying to explain why he invaded Iraq over non-existent WMD and yet has done so little about the real threat North Korea poses:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27599

Between that and figuring out how to blame Democrats and/or Saddam Hussein over the Foley thing, you can't expect him to pay attention to a genocide or two!

I expect stupid things to come out when Bush opens his mouth. What's more interesting to me is how General Casey reacted when questioned about the Lancet paper. He said the largest estimate he'd seen was 50,000. Asked where the number came from, he didn't know.

So (leaving Bush aside, because he can't be expected to rise above the intellectual level of the mold that used to grow on my bathroom door back when I was single), the people in charge can't be bothered to remember petty little details concerning how many people are dying in Iraq and who our sources of information are. We want to win over the Iraqi people, or so we're told, but keeping track of how many people we are killing or their fellow Iraqis are killing is just too darn difficult. In fact, it's hard to remember where the little factoids drifting around in our brains even came from.

Boy, this really convinces me of our country's basic benevolence.

Well, Donald, as I've said to you before—General Casey can't pay attention to such things because he cares TOO MUCH about Iraqis. The same goes for war supporters in general. They love Iraqis so much, and their professed pre-war concern for their well-being was so genuine, that they simply can't bear to find out how many have died. That's how sensitive they are.

I don't have links, but its amazing how little the military cares about "them". They consistently say the Iraqi people are lazy and not to be trusted. They've been de-humanized.

There is no way the US military can help Iraq with the attitude they have. Without any feelings of kindness for the people, the motives there aren't going to help anything. Just get out and leave them alone, as should have been done to begin with.

Well, Jonathan, Mr. Compassionate, you had no words of sympathy for either me or my mold spores in my single days. So pluck that beam out of your eye before you say any more nasty things about that nice General Casey.

But yeah, you're right, both here and at ObiWi (it wasn't until recently that I realized that Jon S was how you go incognito at other blogs.) American officials and mainstream American newspaper editors (I'll go easier on some of the reporters, since I think some of them really do care) demonstrate their concern for Iraqi civilians every day they refuse to demand answers on how many we are killing. No doubt it's their sensitivity that holds them back.

Bush speaking out on Darfur is nothing but public relations for Iraq as in Bush cares so much about Darfur thus he really cares about the people of Iraq thus he is righteous and his motives for destroying a country are beyond question.

It also makes his constituents feel better about themselves as human beings and they can absolve themselves from voting for their morals.

Cough.

It is also a beautiful if not classic example of how people separate little pieces of reality as if there is no correlation at all between Darfur and Iraq. This is perhaps one of the most astounding aspects of the human mind which completely erases any possibility that hypocrisy may be part of the deal.

Since, I disagreed with going into Iraq to begin with I was relieved to hear President Bush say there were only 30.000 deaths of who I figured at least some were innocent folks. If 650.000 is more like the honest number of deceased there could not be one person who has not been touched personally by our war and I believe there is no way we could win the hearts of anyone involved untill at least ten generations from now. God Forgive Us.

More Bushist mirrorspeak: It's not genocide if the president does it.

"I'm glad the neocons haven't been more involved in the events in Darfur, because I have to believe that if they "cared" more and got us more involved, things there would invariably worsen."

Oh come now, Jonathan Versen. You don't have much confidence in your government masters, now do you?

The other day I saw a bumper sticker "I support an Iraqi Freedom Fighter". I wondered if they meant they supported an Iraqi (sunni or shite) fighting to rid their country of Americans....Wade K