03/08/2006 08:55 pm ET Updated May 25, 2011

Darfur Again, The Little Roy Challenge


Yes, I'm harping on this but the guy did call me a traitor to my country: Look at the situation plainly: I've offered to give $10,000 to any AIDS organization the newly anti-Bush pundit Andrew Sullivan so chooses if he can prove an extremely serious accusation he made against me after 9/11. Andrew, who is HIV positive and likes to discuss this fact with reporters, has not deigned to reply.

This can only mean one of two things. Either Andrew does not care about the victims of AIDS who are not as wealthy as he is enough to bother with my publicly offered contribution--with the added bonus for him that someone he deems "hateful" is out ten grand--or he is a liar who casts about wild accusations he cannot support against people for saying pretty much what he is saying today.

Which is it Andrew? Do you not care about your fellow HIV sufferers enough to bother to get them ten thousand bucks or are you just an irresponsible McCarthyite liar? Same question for your superiors at Time, by the way....

Ps. I don't actually expect Andy to admit he was wrong any more than I do his ex-buddy, W. But he might wish to make amends to all of the folks he slandered, you know, the late Ms. Sontag and the rest of the "decadent coastal elites" manning (and wo-manning) the "fifth columns" with whom he now agrees about Bush, by making out a check of say, $5K to the AIDS organization of OUR choice. I pick Heartbeat.

Darfur Again:

Thanks to the editors of The New Republic for carrying Eric Reeves' profoundly useful coverage of the increasingly horrifying situation in Darfur. He seems a mite naïve about Bush, however, as anyone who hopes for anything positive at all from this government must be. This week he writes in the hopes of having Bush lead NATO into Darfur despite the fact that NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer ruled out the possibility of sending NATO troops NATO's role, he said, should be "in the enabling sphere" and should not involve "the boots of troops on the ground."

Reeves notes: "This is the central problem. Even if the United Nations agrees to relieve the African Union in Darfur, there is no reserve of U.N. peacekeepers from which to draw. Assembling a U.N. force will therefore take a good deal of time; and, meanwhile, the genocide will continue. Insecurity is on the rise throughout Darfur; humanitarian reach is contracting; and violent attacks continue to displace civilians. If security deteriorates to the point where humanitarian workers cannot stay in Darfur and continue to serve refugees, then disease and malnutrition will take over--and finish the genocidal work that the Sudanese government began. That is where NATO could have helped: by deploying troops now as an interim step until the United Nations is ready to send peacekeepers of its own."

But really, George Bush? Can he lie to us about Darfur's weapons of mass destruction? About its nuclear weapons program? About its harboring of Al-Qaeda terrorists? Did its intelligence chief meet with Mohammed Atta in Prague in April 2001?

Here Reeves comes back to the unhappy reality: "Unfortunately, the administration's signals so far have not been encouraging. Almost as soon Bush had uttered his mid-February statement on Darfur, a Pentagon spokesman cautioned that it was "premature to speculate" on the involvement of U.S. troops. This comment tracked closely with what a State Department spokesman said following a meeting between Bush and Kofi Annan: that it's "premature to speculate on what the U.S. contribution might be."

I don't think it's "premature" to speculate. Whatever Bush does, he'll lie about it.
I promise.

Join the Million Voices for Darfur here.

Worst President in History, Update:

You know what's funny? First this, from the WSJ via The No" Despite the likely drawdown in the number of troops overseas, the Wall Street Journal's David Rogers reports that the bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is expected to grow this year. Of the monthly tab of $5.9 billion in Iraq and another $1 billion in Afghanistan, Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK), a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, says "there are unprecedented costs. It's staggering."

You know what else? The guy ran as a fiscal conservative, he's busted the budget beyond belief and the above costs are not even included! And yet he still has the support of "movement conservatives."

You know what's not funny? Our children will pay for this profligacy in the form of dysfunctional government and declining living standards, perhaps forever. You know what else is not funny? The MSM don't seem to care...

"While high-income Americans have prospered from Bush's policies, reaping most of the benefits from the tax cuts he pushed through Congress during his first term, a majority of high-end earners told pollsters that former President Bill Clinton did a better job than Bush in managing the economy." Here.

Matching voters to databases to decide who can vote caused havoc in Florida twice in a row. In case you thought that Congress finally fixed the problems caused by matching voter lists: this report will make you think again.

Did you see Eric Umasky's op-ed raising about the administration's move to "transfer" Gitmo detainees to their home country where some, again, are being held without charges and in some cases abused. The white house is actually pushing afghanistan, where many of the detainees are going, to change its constitution since, inconveniently, it currently doesn't allow
prisoners to be held indefinitely without trial. It's here.

Republicans, Then and Now: Lincoln vs. Bush.

Things I've not noticed but apparently others have: "I've noticed that quite a few Americans are resistant to the idea that there's any connection between, say, the agit-funk of Gang of Four and the glam-disco of ABC." Here.

Altersports section:

Michael Rapoport writes: "Eric: I know you're a Barry Bonds fan, but I'd like to see any defender of Bonds explain this. Eric replies: I'm working on it, but in the meantime, congrats to the Times Sports section for this sentence: "The New York Times was unable to verify the information independently." Here.

(But this one had to hurt: "An article on Feb. 28 about concerns raised by the Coast Guard over the deal with a Dubai company, DP World, incorrectly described legislation proposed by two Democratic Senators, Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Robert Menendez of New Jersey, and a correction in this space on Thursday also described it incorrectly.")