Obsessive Law Student

No, I'm not letting the subject go. A few days ago, Fitz-Hume over at Begging the Question reprinted a very interesting post on the Sudan that originally appeared on the Coalition for Darfur blog. The post describes the recent willingness of U.S. government officials to downplay the atrocities occuring in Darfur. The retreat apparently comes in the wake of the Sudanese government's willingess to help the U.S. track al Queda.

So, today, I was shocked to read that President Bush had this to say while travelling in Latvia this week:

"We will not repeat the mistakes of other generations - appeasing or excusing tyranny, and sacrificing freedom in the vain pursuit of stability," he added.

President Bush was, of course, referring to the tyranny of the Soviet Union following World War II and correlating it to the Middle East today. This, of course, begs the question (not to steal the name of a well-respected blog): so, we're unwilling to appease or excuse tyrrany in the Middle East, but it's perfectly excusable and appeasable when it's in Northern Africa? Hmm....

Of course, in President Bush's first admission that the United States may have done anything wrong ever, he blames FDR for the Yalta Accords. Nice job W. The Washington Post indicates the President diverged from past U.S. traditions:

"While U.S. officials usually disclaim responsibility for fomenting uprisings in Moscow's traditional orbit, Bush, at the news conference, embraced the idea of assisting those beleaguered activists in other nations fighting for democracy."

Specifically, the President referred to Belarus. That's good. Because, you know, we should really use all that free time we have left over after invading Iraq & Afghanistan to support protestors in Belarus. Much more fun than stopping genocide in the Sudan.

Well, at least Bush is getting somewhere with North Korea, right . . .. I mean, the President was just being playful when he described Kim Jong Il as a "tyrant" and "dangerous man." And then, that good ol' boy Jong Il was got him back when he had a minister loving refer to Bush as a "hooligan." Right?

** Thanks to Kristine for pointing out my earlier mistake in saying that Fitz-Hume actually wrote the post.