Well, that might be a stretch. But let me offer some cautious praise for President Bush (whodathunk you'd ever read that here?)...
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush said Wednesday he is dispatching U.S. military personnel to Georgia in a "vigorous and ongoing" mission to provide humanitarian aid to victims of the fighting between Russian and Georgian troops.
Shortly after Bush spoke, the White House announced that a U.S. Air Force C-17 cargo jet carrying medical supplies arrived in the Georgian capital of Tbilisi.
Another C-17 is to arrive in Tbilisi on Thursday carrying more supplies, including 104,000 doses of antibiotics requested by the Georgian Ministry of Health, a State Department spokesman said. The value of both shipments is $1.28 million, he said.
Bush said more U.S. military aid missions were planned by the Navy and Air Force.
He warned Russia not to interfere with any relief efforts.
"We expect Russia to honor its commitment to let in all forms of humanitarian assistance. We expect Russia to ensure that all lines of communication and transport, including seaports, airports, roads, and airspace, remain open for the delivery of humanitarian assistance and for civilian transit," Bush said at the White House.
I remain prayerful that this would just be a humanitarian mission and not a way of striving to provoke Russia into a larger conflict. I also offer thanks for France's negotiation of the ceasefire yesterday. May cooler heads prevail.
With prayers for peace and justice...
2 comments:
I tend to be on Georgia's side, even though there has been wrong on both sides. Nevertheless, it has been bizarre to watch Bush's neocons lecture Russia about violations of international law. Weren't these the same folk who ridiculed international law when we invaded Iraq, when we decided to invent a new category of p.o.w. called "unlawful combatants," when we decided to suspend habeas corpus, hold indefinitely without charge or trial, torture, etc.? Who called the Geneva Conventions "quaint?" But now, suddenly, the same folks are big fans of international law.
Didn't they realize that our example would open these floodgates to greater global lawlessness? Now, we have to try to put the toothpaste back into the tube. OY!
That's one of the serious problems of refusing to go along with international law: Everything is fine when you're the one doing the flouting of int'l law, but what about when you want to hold someone else accountable?
On what grounds if you've already said int'l law is meaningless?
Post a Comment