GregsOpinion.com

Sorry I've been off the case recently re: Darfur. I mean, I sensed the outcry for updates, lemme tell ya. Nick Kristof has an update for us all, though. Not sure if Nick merely just confirms my suspicion that things have deteriorated or that it should just shock nobody that I'm on a similar wavelength with Nick (egads, what next? ... shall I applaud an EJ Dionne column?). Still, there's at least this to add so that I find whatever sense of validation that someone with their ear a little closer to the ground has pretty much the same sense of failure as I do on this:

Early in his presidency, Mr. Bush read a report about Bill Clinton's paralysis during the Rwandan genocide and scrawled in the margin, "Not on my watch."

But in fact the same thing is happening on his watch, and I find that heartbreaking and baffling. Mr. Bush's core constituency, the religious right, has been pushing him to be more active on Sudan, and some of the first people to jump up and down about Darfur were in Mr. Bush's own Agency for International Development.

Mr. Bush did take modest action (much more than most Europeans), and even these baby steps halted the worst of the killing, saving tens of thousands of lives. So, in effect, Mr. Bush had the ball in his hands - and then fumbled it.

What should the president do?

Mr. Bush should travel to Sudan, as Tony Blair did. He should forcefully denounce the brutality - and also the misconduct of the rebels. He should convene a mini-summit meeting of leaders to send a larger international force in Darfur. He should push ahead with a U.N. resolution, even at the risk of a veto from China. And he should threaten targeted economic sanctions against Sudan's leaders unless attacks stop immediately.

Finally, Mr. Bush should bar the Sudan government from using its aircraft to terrorize civilians. This doesn't have to involve constant surveillance flights. As an American general, Charles Wald, whose command includes Africa, told me, "It would be easier to tell the Sudanese that if they do use aircraft for civilian attacks, bad things will happen to their planes on the ground." After Sudan lost its first plane, it might stop strafing civilians.

What can ordinary Americans do? They can call the White House or their members of Congress to demand action, and they can reach into their pockets. Jack Weisberg, a New Yorker with no previous interest in such causes, asked me for the name of an organization doing good work in Darfur. I mentioned Doctors Without Borders. Saying he was suffering an "attack of conscience," he then wrote the group a check for $500,000.

"Look, I love money," Mr. Weisberg said. "But it's time to share what I've made. ... Our money is life to them."

A lot of lives, in the case of his donation, although even a $20 contribution goes a long way in Sudan. But above all we need Mr. Bush to show some moral leadership - and, yes, some of his "moral values."

Mr. Bush bemoaned Mr. Clinton's use of the White House for sex with an intern, and he was right to do so. But it's incomparably more immoral, and certainly a greater betrayal of American values, for Mr. Bush to sit placidly in the White House and watch a genocide from the sidelines.

The "not on my watch" moment is one I've not let go of from the memory banks. With any new administration, there comes a sense of idealism in never making the silly mistakes the predecessor made. Clinton was just as guilty as Bush is on this. But what is truly baffling is not that Bush is merely falling prey to the same sense of limitations that Clinton sensed on Rwanda ... it's that he's falling prey to the same sense of feebleness on this issue as the overwhelming majority of American and European leaders throughout history. Hell, I'm not suggesting this just because I think Samantha Power is kinda hot ... I'm saying this because her book is an eye-opener of the first magnitude on the issue of genocide.

The Bush admin has made a few moves I think are worth applauding. After all, I really don't give a rat's behind about political points on this. The admin is right to call this what it is: genocide. They were bold enough to have, however temporarily, a strong advocate for ending acts of genocide in John Danforth at the UN. They've even done a few noteworthy moves in putting boots on the ground.

But the adminsitration's fumble consists of taking each and every one of those points and kicking itself in the rear end. When Colin Powell called it what it was, he followed up by stating that the act of proper identification does not demand action. John Danforth up and left after an all-too-brief tenure (in some fairness, this may be due more to the suspicion that he thought the State job was his instead of Condi's). And the level of troops only qualifies as applaudable to the extent that one can say: "Yeah, I guess if you're going to send us 50 troops instead of the 5,000 we need, at least the 50 are doing the roles we'd hope they'd be doing."

Never again? More like "again and again."