Apparently, being a state sponsor of terrorism doesn't disqualify a country from being an ally in the War on Terror. But then, we already knew that.

Last week, the State Department released its 2006 terrorism report, which included this judgment about Sudan: “The Sudanese government was a strong partner in the War on Terror and aggressively pursued terrorist operations directly involving threats to U.S. interests and personnel in Sudan.”

But Sudan remains on the State Department’s list as a state sponsor of terror. And as a result of state-sponsored genocide, hundreds of thousands of people have died in Darfur and 2.5 million more have been forced to flee their homes. On April 18 in a speech at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, President Bush criticized the Sudanese government:

Sudan’s government has moved arms to Darfur, conducted bombing raids on villages, they’ve used military vehicles and aircraft that are painted white — which makes them look like those deployed by humanitarian agencies and peacekeeping forces.

Sens. Ron Wyden (D-OR), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Olympia Snow (R-ME), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) wrote a letter today to National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell questioning the basis for the administration’s claim that Sudan “is a strong partner in the war on terror.” Feingold issued the following statement:

The Administration needs to explain why its recent terrorism report described the government of Sudan, a state sponsor of terrorism which has been behind the genocide in Darfur, as a “strong partner in the War on Terror.” As we seek to stop the genocide, it is critical that Congress have all necessary information related to this administration’s policies and priorities in Sudan.

In November 2001, Bush said partners in the war against terror networks would be put to a simple test: “You’re either with us or against us in the fight against terror.” But today, when asked about the discrepancy in its Sudan policy, White House spokesman Tony Fratto replied: “Look, the situation in Sudan is complicated.”

From www.thinkprogress.org

__________________
"To announce that..we are to stand by the president whether right or wrong..is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt, 1918

Your links credibility fell apart when I read about the Condoleezza Rice ,Nancy Pelosi
Syria visit. Everyone who reads this knows what all is left out of this article.

The site paints with a one color brush.

__________________
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
Thomas Jefferson

Ah I had varous things to say but meh not worth the time.




ThinkProgress
The source alone says all that needs to be said...like reading a Cuban Newspaper..

Interesting. Two replies, neither of which address the factual issues in the post. Not surprising considering the posters.

Considering, however, that the article is based on the Bush administration's annual report on terrorism and the State Department's own identification of states sponsoring terrorism, just how does the source of the article influence the facts?

Oh, that's right, facts aren't really something you guys deal with, are they?

__________________
"To announce that..we are to stand by the president whether right or wrong..is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt, 1918

Note the comments in the article about the US policy on the Genocide in the Sudan?
Note the comments on the administrations efforts to get the UN act on the genocide in the Sudan?
No?..what a shock!..even when they can use something like it to buoy what they are doing they wont acknowledge it because it doesnlt fit their spiels.


Do you really think a spokeperson for the administration asked a queston would reply that simply?.."hey its complicated"..next...C'MON!

I want the entire transcript of what was asked about the Sudan and what he aid..can you find it on that site? Of course not they don't provide such things..your just supposed to accept their spin.

Facts?..pffffffffffffffffffff.... If they suite otherwise what are facts but temprorary inconveniences to promptly ignore there and across the Far Left blogs or whatever...

ThinkProgress is a waste of time.


Maybe I should take your route?

http://www.politicalforum.com/viewto...faux&&start=48

http://www.politicalforum.com/viewto...highlight=faux

..and thats just a quick search of "FAUX".

Nah...I think I'll stay away form that type of crap.

Not difficult to find the source. It was hyperlinked on the thinkprogress.org site. (Hint: When a word or phrase is underlined, it often means it is a hyperlink to the original source.)

The original source doesn't change anything about the point made in the original post. The US is quite willing to reward "terrorist" states depending upon whom they are "terrorizing."

"The White House on Friday tried to explain how the US government could label Sudan "a strong partner in the war on terror" and a state sponsor of terrorism -- in the same US State Department report.

The 2006 "Country Reports on Terrorism," made public April 30, lists Sudan along with North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Cuba as state sponsors of terrorism but singles out Khartoum for taking "significant steps" to fight extremism.

"The Sudanese government was a strong partner in the war on terror and aggressively pursued terrorist operations directly involving threats to US interests and personnel in Sudan," the report says.

Asked about the apparent discrepancy, White House spokesman Tony Fratto replied: "Look, the situation in Sudan is complicated."

"We need Sudan to take aggressive action on activity in its borders that could be supportive of terrorism. We also need Sudan to, as the president outlined in his speech at the Holocaust Museum a few weeks ago, to get serious about the situation in Darfur and the rebel groups in that country," he said.

His comments came as four members of the Senate Intelligence Committee said that the apparent contradiction, as well as recent warnings from US President George W. Bush over violence in Darfur, "raise serious questions about competing policies and priorities."

http://rawstory.com/news/afp/US_sees..._05042007.html

Next question? Or can you find your way around the web on your own?

__________________
"To announce that..we are to stand by the president whether right or wrong..is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt, 1918

Ah so ThinkProgress was answered.....figures.
Darfur has nothing to do with it and the "discrepancy" was explained.

IOW the article is meaningless and typical ThinkProgress malignment of the administration based on the inability to think or progress beyond grade school level nonsense.



Baloney. It makes a dramatic difference.
The second part of that is unsubsantiated malarky...discredited by the overall actions of the USA in regards to the Sudan.

Whatelse do you expect from this administration the people in Darfur are not being terrorized thats just civil unrest.

Peace.

This administration has defined it as acts of Genocide and has repeatedly gone to the UN to try to get something done about it.



I will take your track though.
Its not our problem.
Its not our concern.
We have no business meddling in their affairs.

You just can't make liberals happy. If we're not talking to such countries----like Syria----they complain. "Dialogue is what we need", they say. If we do, they complain. It's the reason no one should even try to make them happy.

__________________
Clintonite after Clintonite. My question is, "So when does this so-called CHANGE start?"