The Obama Watch
Obama’s Dreadful Sudan Policy
Amazingly, its genocidal regime hasn’t been won over with gold stars and smiley faces.
During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama was baffled by Rick Warren’s question about when, in the candidate’s view, a baby gets human rights. Obama’s stammering response ended with his instantly-famous line that the question was “above my pay grade.”
Obama seems to have embraced a similar approach to human rights abroad. From Iran’s democracy protestors to Cuba’s political prisoners and China’s human rights advocates, the American president’s “open-hand” foreign policy has been defined by conspicuous silence about human rights.
President Obama’s reticence on human rights contrasts sharply with the rhetoric of a candidate who made human rights a focal point of his campaign. Nowhere has the gap between Obama’s campaign talk and his administration’s actions been greater than on Sudan.
It is difficult to find a country more ravaged by war than Sudan. The conflict in Darfur and the war between North and South have together left some 2.5 million people dead and millions of others displaced.
Senator Obama was one of the upper chamber’s most vocal advocates of strong action against the Sudanese regime. As a presidential candidate, he endorsed tougher sanctions on the Sudanese government and implementation of a no fly zone. He promised to end the genocide in Darfur and preserve a fragile North-South peace.
At her confirmation hearing, Sec. of State Hillary Clinton said preserving the North South peace agreement would be a “top priority.” Obama’s chief Sudan advisor, Susan Rice (now ambassador to the United Nations), hinted at U.S. military action against Khartoum, and vowed to “go down in flames” advocating tough measures.
Joe Biden even said, “I would use American force now [in Darfur].”
But like so many of its promises, the Obama administration’s tough talk about Sudan has not translated into tough policy. In fact, after years of blasting George W. Bush’s Sudan policy, Obama is now being slammed for offering too much carrot and not enough stick to a government whose president is the first sitting head of state to be indicted by the International Criminal Court, for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Obama’s special envoy to Sudan, Scott Gration, says he wants to build rapport with Khartoum. He created controversy recently with his bizarre statement that he would win over Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir with “cookies…gold stars, smiley faces, handshakes, agreements, talk, engagement.”
Clinton has similarly called for “a menu of incentives and disincentives, political and economic.”
In August, Gration suggested to Congress that Sudan be taken off the U.S. terrorism list, thus laying the basis to lift heavy sanctions previously imposed on Khartoum. Gration has also created controversy by stating that the Darfur genocide is over and that the deaths still occurring there are merely the “remnants of genocide.”
Unlike his predecessor, President Obama rarely talks publicly about Sudan. After Obama failed to mention Sudan in his SOTU address to Congress, Darfur activists released a statement …”We are very far from the unstinting resolve on Sudan that President Obama promised in the campaign.”
China is complicit with genocide in Darfur through its investment of more than $9 billion in oil in exchange for arms, and in its refusal to back U.N. action against the Bashir regime.
But Obama hasn’t talked to China about its unconscionable support for Bashir. Which recently led 44 members of Congress to send a letter to the president. It stated, in part, that Obama’s “failure to exert sufficient public pressure on China regarding its relationship with Khartoum will send a signal to the rest of the world that the United States places other interests ahead of achieving peace in Sudan.”
The president’s neglect of Sudan has caused much disappointment among human rights groups. A recent Save Darfur email stated, “As [Obama] took office, he promised high-level leadership to bring peace to Darfur and all of Sudan. Unfortunately, Obama’s strong words in the campaign have yet to be accompanied by the kind of decisive leadership we expected from the new president.”
About the Author
Daniel Allott is a writer in Washington, D.C.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (88) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Daniel Allott
More Articles From The Obama Watch
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/02/15/obamas-dreadful-sudan-policy
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.15.10 @ 7:51AM
Other things above King Kool Aide's pay grade: Political insight, courage and honesty.
Jim O'Brien| 2.15.10 @ 8:29AM
Everything Obama does is "dreadful". He hasn't done one thing that makes sense. Higher taxes, wage war on business, bigger government, unsustainable national debt, unilateral nuclear concessions to Russia, cap & trade, man-made "global warming" idiocy, giving terrorists the rights of U.S. citizens, telling Israel it must make unilateral concessions to the terrorists to achieve "peace", appointing Sotomayor, trying to force socialized medicine on the majority of Americans who don't want it, Mirandizing the bomber, and lying to us more every day. Obama calls for a "post American" world, telling us that the United States is not an exceptional country! It's time to impeach Obama for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Let's make this a "post Obama" nation.
MOS was 71331| 2.15.10 @ 2:08PM
0bama's impeachment, while more than justified by his conduct, just won't happen. He also has two great insurance policies protecting him from both impeachment and assassination: Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi.
James Pawlak | 2.15.10 @ 8:39AM
The basic problem are the basic teachings of Islam.
Pingback| 2.15.10 @ 8:53AM
Must Know Headlines 2.15.2010 — ExposeTheMedia.com links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Richard Baker| 2.15.10 @ 9:20AM
Smiley faces? Are we being governed by a pack of Kindergarten teachers? Are there ANY adults in this sorry excuse for an Administration? If I'm the Moslem crazies around the world, I'm laughing my butt off from my cave or palace.
S.L. Toddard| 2.15.10 @ 9:38AM
"From Iran's democracy protestors to Cuba's political prisoners and China's human rights advocates, the American president's "open-hand" foreign policy has been defined by conspicuous silence about human rights."
That would be rich indeed, for Obama to hypocritically admonish other nations for human rights abuses while maintaining various gulags, while subjecting persons to rendition to torture-friendly countries, while holding prisoners for years absent any due process, while seizing the power to indefinitely cage persons convicted of no crime, and while refusing - in clear violation of law - to prosecute alleged American torturers.
Stan Redmond| 2.15.10 @ 9:54AM
You're right. Better to say nothing, do nothing, and allow Darfur campaign promises to expire. Obviously Obama inherited rendition and gulags from Bush so Obama's silence on Sudan is entirely Bush's fault. It's all so clear to me now.
danfromatlanta| 2.15.10 @ 4:26PM
Toddard, how do you think the prisoners in our "gulags" (apparently you have never seen Gitmo, which is a resort compared to the miserable conditions in the countries they grew up in) got there? Do you suppose American GI's just went in to peaceful little Muslim villages and rounded all their young men for shipment to POW camps? What an idiot! These are non-uniformed combatants (not even subject to the protections of the Geneva Conventions) captured on fields of battle, trying to kill our soldiers. of course to idiots like you, our imperialist soldiers probably deserved being shot at by the freedom fighters of Iraq and Afghanistan. Idiots like you are the ones that ought to be waterboarded until you renounce your treasonous beliefs!
John3| 2.15.10 @ 9:48AM
When you don't believe in an objective truth, you will never get anywhere--even if you are President. Mr. Obama decides based on "political correctness" and disregards the basic tenets of right and wrong. Unfortunately, he epitomizes the relativistic attitude of liberal America which is the legacy of each and every fallen regime: the Roman Empire, the French Revolution, Communist Soviet Union.
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.15.10 @ 10:10AM
John3, hi.
I'm channeling the terminator here. (You know, when he said "I'll be bauck")
...In the words of Jim Kelly, quarterback of the Buffalo Bills..."weeeeeeer'e baa-ack!"
I'm speaking of the American majority of grown ups of course. "WE ARE BACK".
Pingback| 2.15.10 @ 11:01AM
The American Spectator : Obama's Dreadful Sudan Policy | Drakz News Station links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.15.10 @ 11:03AM
The American Spectator : Obama's Dreadful Sudan Policy : PlanetTalk.net - Learn the links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Charles Stevens| 2.15.10 @ 11:15AM
I am convinced that S.L.Toddard is a progressive troll, assigned by the Vast Left-Wing Collusion to post here at Spectator. His thinly disguised purpose is to hoist Conservatives on their own petard. However, this is laughable, because he inevitably assumes premises not based in fact and facts not in evidence, wraps them up in a postmodernist narrative, and then spews out some flawed conclusion in a sarcastic, snarky rendition that is reminiscent of a sophomore majoring in political science.
Thanks to Obama, Conservatives are now becoming aware of non-revisionist history, logical fallacies, and trolls funded by the left. With any luck, this may eventually discourage them from posting their nonsense. (BTW, this is my first and last post on this matter... it deserves no further consideration).
Marc Jeric| 2.15.10 @ 12:14PM
What do you expect our Abu Hussein from Kenya to do about his muslim brother the ruler of Sudan?
saleboter| 2.15.10 @ 12:38PM
Obami can't be bothered with foreign policy. He just wants to give us 'free' stuff.
Hardcard| 2.15.10 @ 12:38PM
Above his pay grade ? Maybe he can file a grievance at s.e.i.u. he's a card carrying member.
yves bauer| 2.15.10 @ 2:05PM
This is great, you are blaming Obama for not pursuing human rights in his foreign policy. NO US PRESIDENT has ever conducted foreign policy around human rights, at least not for altruistic reasons. If US presidents have conducted, human rights in their foreign policy, it was only used in rhetoric to sell to the public, but the real reasons would be for purely national interests. The academic litterature on this is huge,I guess one of the classics was the tragedy of American diplomacy by williams. Most realists would agree with me, so google political realism and read up! But here if you want something that will "shock you" because it clashes with your image of Americans read this by John Mearsheimer a short little beauty.
http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0202/features/
danfromatlanta| 2.15.10 @ 4:31PM
Oh really? Tell me you moron, what was the national interest that motivated the US to engage the Serbs in the Bosnian conflict if not human rights of the Bosnian Muslims? Your views are not surprising given you reference anything from the University of Chicago. I'll bet you have a lot of your material from UC Berkley too right?
Stuart Koehl| 2.15.10 @ 2:07PM
Every day I pass a Presbyterian church which has a banner hanging outside: "Darfur: Raising Awareness". It disgusts me. Awareness is not going to end the genocide in Darfur. Nothing short of fifty thousand young American men on the ground, suitably armed with rifles, machineguns, armored vehicles and artillery is going to end the genocide.
Who is willing to grasp the nettle? We would have to provide a security cordon for the various African villages and camps being terrorized by the Janjeweed. We would have to destroy or neutralize the helicopters and aircraft the Sudanese government uses to provide logistic and fire support to the Janjeweed. Fighting the Janjeweed themselves is relatively straightforward, even simple, because they are not particularly good against people who shoot back.
The real problem is what to do about the intractable problem of Sudan, a country which has not been capable of humane self-government for, well, since the Battle of Oumderman. Is the West willing to take over a large African country and run it for several generations until such time as civil institutions have been developed and are capable of operating without outside support? Is the West willing to commit the manpower and resources needed not only to ensure that the current killing stops, but that it will not restart the moment our backs are turned?
My guess is no. The West seems remarkably indifferent to the fate of black Africans, whether they are in the Congo, or Rwanda, or Uganda, or Sudan. Several million Africans have perished through war or massacre over the past two decades, and not a word out of any of the various human rights organizations.
On the other hand, oceans of ink have poured forth on the plight of the Palestinians and the perfidity of the Israelis--even though the number of Palestinians (mostly terrorists) killed by Israelis pales to insignificance next to the number of civilians killed warring factions in Africa. Hell, Human Rights Watch can't be bothered to notice that the number of Palestinians killed by other Palestinians is a couple of orders of magnitude higher than the number killed by Israelis. Perhaps that's just the soft racism of low expectations--the Palestinians can't be expected to do better, but the Israelis must be held to a higher standard (than any other nation in history)? But it seems the same soft racism applies to African affairs as well: we meddle constantly in the Palestinian conflict, but can't be bothered about a few million dead Africans.
Yves Bauer| 2.15.10 @ 2:16PM
So the 1000+ dead in the war on gaza last year were terrorists? How can you label a population terrorist? Idiot.
danfromatlanta| 2.15.10 @ 4:35PM
Uh, I guess you have never seen the children's programs aired on "Palestinian" TV, where the cute little characters, some of them ripped off Disney characters, teach toddlers to kill Jews, and promote martyrdom in the pursuit of killing Jews. In my opinion, Israel ought to be congratulated by the world community for not wiping the "Palestinians" clean off the map, which they are perfectly capable of doing.
Stuart Koehl| 2.15.10 @ 6:18PM
The maximum Palestinian death toll in Gaza was on the order of 300, of which perhaps 120 were civilians. Most were injured because Hamas fighters chose to hide in civilian areas, or used civilians as human shields. The onus for civilian casualties therefore falls upon Hamas--and the Palestinian population of Gaze knows this full well, which is why Hamas support is withering, and the terrorists maintain control only by turning their terror against the people they claim to represent.
Indeed, if hundreds of Palestinian civilians have been killed incidentally by Israel over the past two decades, tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed deliberately by Hamas, Fatah and innumerable splinter groups thereof.
S.L. Toddard| 2.15.10 @ 6:26PM
"The maximum Palestinian death toll in Gaza was on the order of 300, of which perhaps 120 were civilians."
Source? And is that estimate widely accepted?
S.L. Toddard| 2.16.10 @ 7:15AM
What's your source for that casualty total, Mr. Koehl? And is that estimate widely accepted?
S.L. Toddard| 2.15.10 @ 4:04PM
Just so everyone here is clear: There are persons here suggesting that untold billions of dollars of your money should be confiscated by Big Government and sent overseas, so that our military can occupy the Sudan to implement Big Government social programs aimed at rehabilitating Sudanese civil society. Or, more accurately, to *create* Sudanese civil society out of thin air.
America is trillions of dollars in debt, and that amount will continue to skyrocket for the forseeable future. Near 20% of our population is under- or un-employed. We are currently bogged down in two costly, undeclared wars. And the same discredit charlatans who promised a cakewalk in Iraq (and who *doubled our deficit*) are once again trying to hoodwink us into believing Big Government can create Heaven on earth if we only allow it to confiscate enough of our money, and get out of its way. And not just Heaven anywhere on earth - but *in Africa*.
PS
These fanatical devotees to the transformative powers of government claim to be... "conservatives".
Stuart Koehl| 2.15.10 @ 6:19PM
Well, I've given up trying to respond reasonably to you, Tarddard. You cannot be taught, but mindless parrot the tropes your masters have poured into the empty cavity between your ears.
S.L. Toddard| 2.15.10 @ 6:47PM
I don't recall you responding reasonably to me at all. You responded *near* me but not *to* me, and not straightforwardly. The last exchange we had (about the legality of Israeli settlements) saw you in hysterics, frantically constructing straw men, feigning amazement and incredulity at an utterly conventional opinion (that the settlements are illegal) that appears to be consistent with a broad international consensus, avoiding addressing any counterpoint directly, and comically advocating for the Right of Conquest like a parody of Genghis Khan. I dealt each and every one of your "points", such as they were, and I suppose I don't blame you for failing to defend the indefensible, but you did fail nonetheless.
Vae victis, "Dude".
Stuart Koehl| 2.15.10 @ 10:10PM
Consider my sword cast upon the scales, loser.
Stuart Koehl| 2.15.10 @ 10:43PM
But thanks for making my point for me--you spill more crocodile tears and expend more bandwidth on the relative handful of Palestinians killed in the course of a legitimate military operation than you do the millions of Africans killed through deliberate genocide in Sudan (and Congo, and Rwanda, and Uganda).
Why? Because Africans gratuitously killing other Africans doesn't offend your moral sensibilities? Or is it because the Israelis are Jews, and Jews do not have any right of self-defense whatsoever?
S.L. Toddard| 2.16.10 @ 7:15AM
"But thanks for making my point for me--you spill more crocodile tears and expend more bandwidth on the relative handful of Palestinians killed in the course of a legitimate military operation than you do the millions of Africans killed through deliberate genocide in Sudan (and Congo, and Rwanda, and Uganda). Why?"
Because we Americans are not forced to subsidize the African slaughter as we subsidize the Palestinian one. Should our government wise up and end foreign aid to Israel you'd never hear a peep from me on the subject again.
"Or is it because the Israelis are Jews, and Jews do not have any right of self-defense whatsoever?"
Oh how adorable. Little Stuey is playing the ethnic-grievance card.
Stuart Koehl| 2.16.10 @ 9:09AM
Actually, I am pointing out the hypocrisy and double-standard of the Left in regard to human rights, something which goes back to the Cold War days, in which the random and minor transgressions of Western democracies were excoriated while the atrocities of Communist dictatorships were greeted with deafening silence, or at best, with the moral equivalency gambit: "there is poverty in the United States, so how can you criticize the Soviet Union (or China, or Cuba, or Cambodia, or wherever) about anything?"
I repeat my accusation: you don't give a flying f--- about what happens to the Darfuris or any other Africans, but a Palestinian stubs his toe, and you're ready to take to the streets. Why is that?
S.L. Toddard| 2.16.10 @ 11:32AM
"you don't give a flying f--- about what happens to the Darfuris or any other Africans, but a Palestinian stubs his toe, and you're ready to take to the streets. Why is that?"
I have already answered this question: Because we Americans are not forced to subsidize African slaughter as we must subsidize Palestinian slaughter. Should our government wise up and end foreign aid to Israel you'd never hear a peep from me on the subject again.
What's your source for the casualty total in the Gaza "War", Mr. Koehl? And is that estimate widely accepted?
S.L. Toddard| 2.16.10 @ 2:07PM
What's your source for the casualty total in the Gaza "War", Mr. Koehl? And is that estimate widely accepted?
Pingback| 2.15.10 @ 4:41PM
The American Spectator : Obama's Dreadful Sudan Policy links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.15.10 @ 4:41PM
The American Spectator : Obama's Dreadful Sudan Policy links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Michael Tomlinson| 2.15.10 @ 5:32PM
"The president's neglect of Sudan has caused much disappointment among human rights groups. A recent Save Darfur email stated, 'As [Obama] took office, he promised high-level leadership to bring peace to Darfur and all of Sudan. Unfortunately, Obama's strong words in the campaign have yet to be accompanied by the kind of decisive leadership we expected from the new president.'" What can one expect from a defender of Saddam Hussein and appeaser or possibly sympathizer of Muslim jihad, terrorism and imperialism? Barack Obama (O' Bama) is a failure it is that simple.
Stuart Koehl| 2.15.10 @ 6:21PM
Democrats always love the war they don't have, and loathe the one that they do. Darfur was merely a hypothetical "good war" against which to contrast the actual "bad war" in Iraq--you know, the one which they now take credit for winning.
Richard Baker| 2.15.10 @ 5:32PM
As long as Islam, the "Religion of Peace", prevails in Sudan nothing will change except the number of dead and dying. The only way positive change will occur in any of the Moslem pestholes is if a miraculous death of the "Religion" happened or all the Moslems suddenly died. Other than that, the killing will proceed. The murder cult is.
yves Bauer| 2.15.10 @ 6:46PM
@ Toddard
Over 1000 Palestinians dead (including 300+ children), and thousands injured. Do you want some sources? And no, it is not because of Hamas hiding behind civilians. It is because Israel deliberately wanted to wipe Gaza off the map. It wanted to inflict collective punishment. All these sources are from respected news organizations.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7828884.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl.....aza-israel
537.html
Michael Tomlinson| 2.15.10 @ 8:10PM
Please, the only people wanting to genocide another people and wipe someone off the map are Muslims in regard to Israel and the rest of the West. What is amusing is how much sympathy people have for the PLO an organization once headed by a homosexual mass murderer and pedophile. Of course, as long as Jimmy Carter (the worst occupant of the White House till Obama) Antisemitism and Muslim terrorists will have a champion in America.
http://www.reuters.com/article.....3020070603
http://www.reuters.com/article.....5220080218
yves Bauer| 2.15.10 @ 6:47PM
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1055
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WO.....index.html
yves Bauer| 2.15.10 @ 6:47PM
If you are not content, I can post more.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSB457806
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....-1000.html
yves Bauer| 2.15.10 @ 6:48PM
Sorry Toddard, those comment were for Stuart
Stuart Koehl| 2.15.10 @ 10:21PM
Not particular impressed by al-Reuters, or by the Telegraph, for that matter.
S.L. Toddard| 2.16.10 @ 7:17AM
What is your source for a maximum of 300 casualties in the Gaza assault?
Thom| 2.15.10 @ 7:15PM
Yves Bauer, know how many "civilians" Canadian and allied forces killed on D-Day 1944? The Break Out across France? Lots. That’s what happens when dumb people let themselves be used by one side in a war and the other side attacks them. If you think you can make a difference in Gaza please move from sleepy Canada to Gaza and find out what the real world is like. Your concept of what “civilian” is and perhaps your life will be short lived.
Stuart Koehl| 2.15.10 @ 10:20PM
Actually, I do. Anthony Beevor provides a useful synopsis in his book "D-Day: The Battle for Normandy" (Viking, 2009). In the bombing campaign leading up to the invasion (focused mostly on rail and road transportation targets), some 15,000 Frenchmen were killed and another 19,000 wounded. In the course of the landings and subsequent fighting in the Bocage, up to the breakout in August 1944, it is estimated that another 19,950 were killed and a somewhat larger number wounded. In the city of Caen alone, more than 1,150 died and more than 1800 were wounded--800 on D-Day and D+1, another 350 during the carpet bombing of 7-8 July.
Over the course of World War II, more than 70,000 Frenchmen were killed by Allied bombing and artillery--exceeding the number of British casualties from German bombing.
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.15.10 @ 7:18PM
Yves,
I shall simply ignore you from here on.
You are an obvious jew hater and congenital liar, ready to be sold lies by the so-called links you gave.
Rueters....HA! the news service that fakes its photos to get its bias across.
OH...Ha! and the Communist News Network.
Boy, we all know how accurate and unbiased they are...
Send us a link to PRAVDA while you are at it.
Hah!
Richard Baker| 2.15.10 @ 10:02PM
You know, if the Israelis are going to be accused of these killings then they may as well remove a huge thorn from their side. They won't, of course, being civilized unlike the Arabs, but can you imagine the screaming and shouting if they did? King David wouldn't have hesitated to kill the Philistines in his day. This ought to rile the liberal troops but good, eh?
Stuart Koehl| 2.15.10 @ 10:26PM
There is much to be said for this. However, it looks as though, under the benign neglect of the Obama Administration (well, actually its shear diplomatic incompetence which has rendered it both impotent and irrelevant in the "peace process"), the Palestinians and Israelis are moving towards working things out for themselves. This can be attributed mainly to the Netanyahu government's refusal to truckle to the United States and the "international community", as well as the recognition by the Palestinian people that things are starting to look pretty good on the West Bank, where cooperation with Israel is becoming common, and that things look increasingly crappy in Gaza, where Hamas continues to kill far more Palestinians than it does Israelis.
All this could have ended decades ago, if only we had given war a chance. Instead, we continually rescued the Arabs from the consequences of their own stupidity.
War is terrible, but it does have the very useful effect of putting an end to long-festering international problems.
Pingback| 2.16.10 @ 12:26AM
2/16/2010 Update « President Obama links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.16.10 @ 1:35AM
Fitness Watch: Male breast reduction gaining popularity; fastest … | Surgery Beauty W links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.16.10 @ 2:01AM
The American Spectator : Obama's Dreadful Sudan Policy | Health News links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.16.10 @ 2:04AM
The American Spectator : Obama's Dreadful Sudan Policy | Health News links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.16.10 @ 4:14AM
The American Spectator : Obama's Dreadful Sudan Policy links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.16.10 @ 4:14AM
The American Spectator : Obama's Dreadful Sudan Policy links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.16.10 @ 7:34AM
What's Your Leadership Legacy Going To Be? links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.16.10 @ 11:56AM
Twitter Tweets about Obama as of 16. februar 2010 « Obame and Copenhagen links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.17.10 @ 4:24AM
Tech Park Must Be Preserved to Expand Innovation in West Virginia | Educational West links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
RichardK| 2.17.10 @ 7:31AM
American foreign policy and it seems many of the commentators on this article, are totally comfortable with their hypocrisy. The blatant anti-Islamic position in many of these comments is simply bigoted racism. The US doesn't seem to have a problem with, in fact condones, Nigeria's brutal treatment of the muslim minority (oil interest of course), not to mention Israel's state terrorism towards the Palestinians. The day Americans own up to their sickly hypocrisy will be a fine day, but not holding my breath for it to happen needless to say.
Richard Baker| 2.17.10 @ 6:18PM
RichardK:
Nope. Islam is a murder cult and I've read the Koran, have you? Oooh, he called me racist and bigoted. Big deal.
Pingback| 2.18.10 @ 1:02AM
The American Spectator : Obama's Dreadful Sudan Policy | Health News links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.18.10 @ 1:07AM
The American Spectator : Obama's Dreadful Sudan Policy | Health News links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
RichardK| 2.18.10 @ 6:48AM
Richard Baker: You and OBL, two sides of the same coin.
Richard Baker| 2.18.10 @ 9:44PM
RichardK:
Poor baby. I disagreed with you. Did you cry and scream or mope and brood?
Pingback| 2.19.10 @ 1:46AM
The American Spectator : Obama's Dreadful Sudan Policy | Health News links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.19.10 @ 1:50AM
The American Spectator : Obama's Dreadful Sudan Policy | Health News links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.19.10 @ 5:22PM
The Church Member's Bill of Rights -- Basic Rights Any Member of a Church Should Expe links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.20.10 @ 11:40AM
Higher Self: Growing Inside of Us links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 3.9.10 @ 3:17PM
The Teams Of The NBA Are Struggling With The Recent World … | New Jersey Nets NBA Ann links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Jeff| 5.16.10 @ 9:33PM
For once, I agree with the present stance on Sudan: do practically nothing. Why should we care? How many of us know where Sudan is? Why should we be borrowing more money from the Chinese so we can patrol yet another country? If we really cared about human rights, we would have started with Saudi Arabia. Liberal drivel this article is, and it's best left to rot, as it should.
Puma x Alexander McQueen | 8.13.11 @ 12:03AM
is good