Home Store In Memoriam Deborah Newsletter Forum Topics Blogfeed Blogroll Facebook MySpace Contact Us About

Shepard Smith Uses Clinton's Name When It Comes To Genocide But Doesn't Use Bush's Name For The Present Genocide In Darfur

Reported by Donna - May 9, 2006

Shepard Smith made a point on Studio B today of saying that President Clinton's biggest regret was sitting around while there was a genocide going on but we now have a genocide going on in Darfur for 3 years and we're still stitting around. But he didn't mention that Bush, specifically,was sitting around nor if he regretted it.

Is it alright to use Clinton's name in regards to a genocide going on in the world, but not Bush's? Maybe that's because Clinton admits to mistakes but Bush never does?

The segment itself was pretty straight and to the point. Smith's guest was Governor Bill Richardson (D-New Mexico) who said that the $250 million that President Bush had earmarked for the Sudan was a good start but we needed to do more. Smith said that the president said the U.N. needed to do more. (Comment: Wait a minute, the president is asking for the U.N. to do more when it comes to Darfur but he didn't trust them when it came to Iraq? Wonder why that is so?)

Richardson said that 20,000 U.N. troops were earmarked for Sudan in October but he wished that was going to happen sooner. The problem is, as Smith pointed out, there are now 2 million refugees and once the rainy season hits, these people are going to die.

Richardson even went as far as complimenting Angelina Jolie and George Clooney (Comment: Hope O'Reilly wasn't listening) for bringing attention to the genocide going on in Darfur.

Comments: Except for singling out Clinton and the word 'genocide' but not Bush and the current 'genocide' the segment stuck to the facts with Richardson saying the president had made a good start but needed to do more. I agree with Governor Richardson that the 20,000 peacekeeping troops should be Muslims, since they will be dealing with mostly Muslims. However, I can't help but wonder (and I wondered this 3 years ago when the genocide started) what would have happened if we had sent troops into Darfur instead of Iraq 3 years ago? Would we have stopped a genocide of half a milliion people? Could we have saved the fates of the 2 milliion refugees?

Comments
Post a comment




Remember Me?


We welcome your opinions and viewpoints. Comments must remain civil, on-topic and must not violate any copyright or other laws. We reserve the right to delete any comments we deem inappropriate or non-constructive to the discussion for any reason, and to block any commenter for repeated violations.

Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.