Darfur Warriors of the NY Times

NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Back in December I wrote an item entitled Darfur Warriors of the Boston Globe, describing the newspaper's call for muscular action to end ethnic strife in that region of Africa. Earlier this month, the Globe was back on the case, as I described in The Darfur Double Standard: Globe Calls for Intervention.

Well, you might say, like child like parent. The New York Times, parent corporation of the Globe, is out with an editorial this morning, Talking Darfur to Death, very much along the same lines.

The Times politely writes off UN expressions of concern and Arab League diplomacy. Instead, it demands "concerted international action, including a strong protective force." Note that word: "force." Call it protective, but "force" inevitably implies guys with guns. And to what end? To stop the killing of innocent civilians in the ethnic, largely intra-Muslim, strife that grips Darfur. The parallel with the situation in Iraq is striking. Yet in the Darfur case the Times demands an international force, whereas in Iraq it of course is demanding that the international force in place leave post haste.

What if the United States were to follow the Times' dictum and withdraw, and Iraq plunged into limitless violence, as the Time's own Baghdad bureau chief has predicted? Would the Gray Lady reverse course and demand "concerted international action, including a strong protective force" to stop the killing in Iraq?

Mark was in Iraq in November. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Darfur-double-standard ping to Today show list.

[OpusatFR]

Hey, NYT...

Tell the EU. The Europeans created the African mess when they pulled out.

We didn't colonize Africa. Your beloved Europeans did.

[Leisler]

What's stoping our heroic lefties from forming modern day Lincoln Brigades? They could go to beautiful Darfur and defeat the Muslims.

LINCOLN BRIGADE MEMBERS, SPANISH CIVIL WAR

(notice no 'don't ask, don't tell' problems here. ' They fella, toes are some nice chaps. And were did you get that beret! Hey, do you want to drink wine from from my goatskin?')

[Screamname]

This whole Darfur thing truly shows the absolute and total hypocrisy of the left. Here in New York city, the liberal cesspool of the east coast, you constantly constantly see ads by these leftist Hollywood hypocrites "Stop the genocide in Darfur" or "I am an African" ads...Well what the f- , we went in and stopped a genocidal maniac in Iraq and all we get is constant bashing, but going into to help Darfur or all these other liberal financed warlord run African countries is OK? Or maybe Darfur is more fashionable than Iraq? When is the last time actress from nepotism Gweneth Paltrow, Sting or Bono made any ads for Iraqis or against the liberal emboldened psychopaths who are making their lives a living hell? All you get is Bush bashing and US bashing.

[theBuckwheat]

The folks who want Bush to stop the genocide in Darfur are also the folks who demand Bush pull out of Iraq. What kind of genocide will take place in Iraq after we walk away from there is of no concern to them. The only thing that is important is what their heart bleeds for today.

[xp38]

So is Gwyneth from the shades of blue tribe?

[xp38]

I wonder if that is a barrel of wine on the cart there right behind them? Wine instead of a cannon....no wonder Franco won.

[ClaireSolt]

These people never say what they actually want us to do. It looks like an almost impossible mission to me. Look at the pictures. There is nothing there except bare earth and a few sticks. It would not be a matter of fixing the electricity and sewers as in Iraq. We would have to airlift every drop of water and mouthful of food in and then fight the Sudanese army off for the privilege.

[Brilliant]

"newspaper's call for muscular action"

Alright... Let's all join hands and sing Kumbayah!

[Behind Liberal Lines]

How to shut up the liberal media about Darfur: have President Bush announce we've discovered oil there.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

LOL!

No Blood for Oil in Darfur!

[CharlesThe Hammer]

The only time military force is permissible is when it is exerted by a cosmopolitan, international force and only in a region that is of absolutely no national interest to the United States. That doctrine is the hallmark of Utopian socialist dogma. Allegiance lies only to some nebulous world citizenship: Cue the soundtrack, "Imagine there's no countries..." The most legitimate institutions are impotent extra-national entities like the UN, IAEA, or World Court. The hollow calls to "Save Dar-fur!" will have as much effect as "Free Tibet!", which is nil. The actual requirements of rescue and protection are military infrastructure, training, and will by responsible governmental authorities. Such realities are of little interest to the NY Times and other liberal ideologues. They are merely masters of lip service.

[xp38]

Isn't there oil in the Sudan already?

[Rosemont]

Won't getting involved in Darfur create more terrorism?