[Southack]

Finally, we get a President who will actually demand that Africa take concrete, completely tangible steps in return for our aid and investments.

Mugabe has to go from Zimbabwe, or else South Africa, Botswana, and Nigeria don't get **any** money, for instance.

In contrast, Clinton could ignore the crimes in Zimbabwe and the press would laud him as Africa's best friend, as if perpetrating such chaos was something that a friend would do.

But for Bush, since he is actually demanding that the Communist Mugabe step down, no doubt the Leftist media will decry that he just doesn't understand Africa, is a dummy, and is only doing this tour for votes (among other typical Leftist nonsense).

And of course, the far-Right Buchanonites and utterly-mad Libertarians will no doubt decry Bush's every possible use of tax-payer funds, lest it actually reduce terrorism, bring on world stability, and decrease their chances for their long-awaited "day of awakening" (AKA doomsday).

It's all completely predictable.

[rdb3]

It's all completely predictable.

It sure is.

[Dog Gone]

Africa ought to be wealthy. It is fertile (outside of the Sahara) and has vast amounts of oil and other natural resources. The thing that it is missing is democracy and the rule of law.

If Bush can jumpstart that, then perhaps Africa can quit being a beggar continent and take its rightful place on the world stage.

[AdamSelene235]

And of course, the far-Right Buchanonites and utterly-mad Libertarians will no doubt decry Bush's every possible use of tax-payer funds,

Utterly Mad Libertarian: I decry Bush's every possible use of tax-payer funds