A (rare) accolade for Bush

Because I oppose President Bush on almost everything, when he does something worthy of approval, I hasten to take sides with him. His brave response to 9/11–which rallied not only the American people but also most of the rest of the world to the battle against terrorists–added tremendously to his stature. But, sadly, he frittered away this admiration and support with his bungling in Iraq and in numerous other ways. (For anyone interested in my assessment of the other ways, see my posting The Worst President in History? of 5/19/06.)

But I strongly support his plain-spoken position of sending in a United Nations military force to stop the brutal genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan (my previous postings on this horrible situation are: The shame of Darfur (4/9/06), The shame of Darfur (more) (4/17/06), and The shame of Darfur continues (5/18/06)). Perhaps he could do more, as the New York Times suggests in an editorial on 9/19/06: "Mr. Bush would begin (to take effective action) if he announced that ending the killing in Darfur was now a first-tier foreign policy concern...(and) if Mr. Bush said the U.S. would take the lead in soliciting troops for the U.N. and recommended making NATO planners available to help draw up contingency plans for a possible forced entry." But I believe that he is due credit for (belatedly) taking the first steps toward addressing the horrible situation.

The idea that the civilized world should defer armed intervention in Sudan to stop the human slaughter because of the lack of permission of the Sudanese government is ludicrous–it would be like, in the Second World War, the allied forces pleading, "Please, Mr. Hitler, grant us permission to bomb your cities and eventually occupy your country."