Why Dennis Kucinich is wrong on Darfur

In one of the democratic debates Dennis Kucinich claimed

"If Darfur had a large supply of oil, this administration would be occupying it right now."

Well, I wonder if Kucinich didn't do his research or if he's purposefully prevaricating but there is literally tons of oil in Sudan in general and Darfur in particular. The estimated 500 million to 5 BILLION barrels of oil in Sudan dwarfs the combined oil reserves of the six Persian Gulf nations.

Back in 2005 a millionaire from the U.K. bought up the Darfur oil rights. Is it any surprise that interest in the situation in Darfur grew dramatically after that?

Also while most of the pressure on Darfur is being aimed at the Sudanese government, what about the rebels themselves? In Aug 2007 a major rebel leader refused to attend peace talks with leaders from rival rebel groups. If the rebel groups can't even agree to meet with each other than why is all of the blame for the civil war being laid at the feet of the Sudanese government?

Finally, I am no fan of the Sudanese regime. I think they are horrible despots. But so was Saddam Hussein. If it was a mistake to go to war with Iraq to end one despotic regime than it is a mistake to threaten war with Sudan to end another despotic regime. When Clinton was president many on the left blindly went along with the war in Kosovo. It was later revealed that many of our "allies" in that war were affiliated with Al Qaeda. While Kucinich has not to my knowledge endorsed war with Sudan, I find it disturbing that he is either ignorant of the facts on such an important issue or is purposefully misleading his own followers. Either doesn't bode well for someone who wants to be the next president of the U.S. Equally disturbing is the fact that the mainstream media didn't call him out on this.

Fighting over Rosie's view

The lines have been drawn, the die has been cast. For years since 9/11 various people have gone public with their doubts about the official story. Some have been high level government officials such as Dr. Paul Craig Roberts who was treasury secretary under Ronald Reagan. (For anyone who things this is a "liberal left wing" issue). Others have been people with science credentials such as Physics professor Stephen P. Jones. Even former republican congressman and staunch Bush supporter Curt Weldon has publicly questioned the official 9/11 story. And as for the victims of 9/11? William Rodriguez, the last man pulled from the towers, went public on his doubts about the official story years ago. You may recall that he was the last man pulled from the towers because he had gone back to rescue others. Or...you may not recall that. Since he's gone public with his assertion that he heard explosions coming from the basement of the towers (as opposed to where the airplanes struck) there has been a virtual media blackout on coverage of this hero.

So why is it such a big deal that Rosie O'Donnell went public with her unconventional views? Well this is, unfortunately, a nation that is obsessed with celebrity. We've spent countless hours talking about the judge in the Anna Nicole Smith case having a breakdown and smoking weed. Rosie O'Donnell isn't the first celebrity to go public. Charlie Sheen went public over a year ago. Despite a viscous smear campaign against Sheen his TV show has remained popular. Sheen wasn't the first celebrity to go public either. Actor Gary Busey was in the documentary 9/11 The Greatest Lie Ever Sold. And Ed Begely Jr. was in the early 9/11 film Confronting the Evidence. But in the "15 minutes of fame" world of Hollywood it's "out of sight, out of mind". Rosie and Charlie are the biggest people in the current limelight to go public. They simply are too big to ignore. So the other possibility is to try to squash them.

Charlie at least didn't have to worry as much about being fired because, lets face it, he's the main attraction for the hit show Two and A Half Men. But Rosie's situation is different. Hosts on "The View" come and go and there was already rumblings about Rosie due to the Donald Trump spat. So the anti free thought forces have pulled out all of the stops. As with Charlie Sheen there's been a smear campaign, although that's having little effect since anything anyone might say about Rosie has already been said. They've been the public death threats by the likes of drug head Danny Bonnaduce, but if Rosie scared that easily she wouldn't have gone public in the first place.

The latest desperate attempt is the online petition drives to get her fired from "The View". The main site, StopRosie.com, was launched March 3, 2007. As of this post it boasts "23,957 people who thing the U.S. is a noble country." (Earth to neocon twits. Those of us who question 9/11 believe the U.S. is a noble country. We just believe our leaders our corrupt. That's no different than those who wanted to see Clinton impeached over selling technology to China or who wanted to see Nixon impeached for wanton abuse of power.) Well now the other side is fighting back. Two websites supporting Rosie are also taking petitions. They are defendrosie.com (also using the URL supportrosie.com ) and keeprosie.com. Keeprosie was launched on March 4, 2007. Defendrosie was launched March 5th. Both sites have over 5,000 signatures. Acutally Keeprosie is close to 5,500. But here's the interesting part. The signatures at StopRosie.com have tapered off! It was at about 22,000 this morning and now it's only at 23,957. KeepRosie and DefendRosie are growing like gangbusters. This despite the fact that DefendRosie.com still doesn't show up in a Google search. Also about 10 percent of StopRosie.com's signatures are obvious fakes with names like "Rosieis Great" or "Thankgodfo Ro" or "Stooproossie Isnwofront", and unlike DefendRosie.com and KeepRosie.com the StopRosie site doesn't allow you to post comments when you sign. (I guess they are really against free speech). We shall see how it pays off. But things aren't looking very good for the signatures of the Project for a New American Century.