The "Decider" has decided.
Bush Straddles His Hard Line in Engaging Sudan - washingtonpost.com
So, lemme see... if I understand this correctly, anyone who would talk to "radical tyrants and dictators" is an "appeaser" (which is what I do every day to endure the radical Christian extremists who surround me), unless, of course, it is "the decider" who is doing the talking. Then it would be 'diplomacy' where "...they want better relations with the United States and we want to stop a genocide."
Hmmmm. Sounds a lot like hypocrisy to me. And I see a lot of that around here, so I know what that is.
Bush Straddles His Hard Line in Engaging Sudan - washingtonpost.com
Sometime in the next few weeks, a special envoy of President Bush plans to meet with Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, whose government sheltered Osama bin Laden and pursued a scorched-earth policy in southern Sudan that resulted in more than 2 million deaths.
Bashir's government has been accused by Bush of participating in a "genocide" in Darfur, the only U.S. government use of such a strong accusation. Yet Richard S. Williamson's visit to Khartoum follows a series of direct contacts by senior Bush administration officials with the Sudanese president, including Secretaries of State Colin L. Powell and Condoleezza Rice, Rice's deputies, and several special presidential envoys.
Bush has spoken to or exchanged letters with Bashir on numerous occasions, underscoring how White House policy has departed from his pointed public call to shun talks with radical tyrants and dictators. His appointees have also pursued aggressive diplomacy with North Korea and Libya and have even conducted limited business with Cuba, Syria and Iran.
In the case of Sudan, experts are deeply divided about how much the administration's engagement has improved conditions in a country beset for decades by mass violence and famine. It has at least provoked charges of hypocrisy, because Bush recently accused those advocating talks with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other radical figures of "appeasement."
So, lemme see... if I understand this correctly, anyone who would talk to "radical tyrants and dictators" is an "appeaser" (which is what I do every day to endure the radical Christian extremists who surround me), unless, of course, it is "the decider" who is doing the talking. Then it would be 'diplomacy' where "...they want better relations with the United States and we want to stop a genocide."
Hmmmm. Sounds a lot like hypocrisy to me. And I see a lot of that around here, so I know what that is.
