From “Spreading Genocide to Chad”:
“Is this really what we have come to? The United Nations has described the carnage in Darfur as the world’s biggest humanitarian crisis but continues to prove itself completely useless at doing anything to stop it. In the Security Council, China protects Sudan. Europe, for its part, has been inert.”
Of course, as Allah pointedly notes in an email, “One could say exactly the same thing about the Iranian nuclear crisis, of course. Or any other international crisis, for that matter. It’s only in Darfur, however, where there are no American interests at stake, that the Times is willing to flirt with cowboy unilateralism.”
Maybe they’re just readying themselves for the next Clinton administration, peace be upon them.
(h/t beltwayblitz, via Allah)
I hate to be pedantic, but the line is “…the walrus said, to talk of many things…”
(not that that helps the UN any…)
Not a problem. The memory fades with age.
Yeah, yeah whatever. What really matters is…does the walrus dance?
That, or the NYT knows that nothing will get done, so they can act all tough to buff up their image – ”see, sometimes we aren’t just reactionaries!” Disingenuous piffle.