I'm glad I don't work for the state of Maryland. Investment jockeys run-amuck.

Great. Not only do they have delusions of grandeur by demanding a full withdrawal from Iraq but now Democrats in Maryland think they can act as the United Nations. It's comforting to know that a few lawyers (politicians) in Annapolis can solve all of the world's problems.

This might just be punishing many for the acts of a few. First Clinton Tomahawks their medical lab to the ground, then the Maryland legislature sanctions their business dealings. Way to go Democrats, can you say "faulty intelligence"?

Wow, micro-management at it's best. Do the members of "the board" realilze that fewer investment monies means fewer jobs for the innocent poor that lives in the villages of Sudan? Those are the people who actually works to earn what meager income that they get. The rebels themselves won't be any poorer.

Like many other issues in this country, our federal government has either decided not to deal with them or are too incompetent to deal with them and they seem to fall on the states to make any movement. Something needs to be done in Sudan. Period. While Maryland's law will make a modest impact at best, it is far more than the Republicans have lifted a finger to do since the conflict started. To bemoan the fact that investment in Sudan (which by the way will only empower the government that is killing it's own people and not go to any of the black minorty as they are now displaced or dead) will be cut off for the sake of missed money making opportunities is just plain callous.

InMoCo

Thanks for showing the hypocrisy of the Left once again.

The fact is that you and all the other Left wing looney tunes out there cry foul whenever the US intervenes in ANYTHING but now it seems that you want it both ways.

What would happen if we got our nose bloodied in Sudan? Would you want us to leave the next day (ala, Somalia)? What happens if genocide sweeps Iraq when your timetable for withdrawal comes? Should we go back? It's a good thing O'Malley and the good ol' boys don't have to answer these questions. Clinton and the Democrats must have been just as "incompetent" in the days of the Rwandan genocide.

Maybe the problem is the U.N. But you couldn't have someone like John Bolton in there could you? So now, regimes like this can continue on unchecked without worrying about any U.N. (I mean US) intervention.

I always find the "hypocrite" argument the best kind. Any time someone does something you disagree with they become hypocrites.

So, were the Republicans and right wingers hypocrites when they opposed Clinton going to Bosnia to stop a genocide?

And to answer your question directly, yes Clinton was grossly incompetent when it came to Rwanda, but that only makes this administration even more culpable when it comes to Sudan. They've obviously learned nothing.

Understand that I'm not talking about invading Sudan and neither was the Assembly. We're talking about the same kinds of action that ended apartheid.

And by the way, if there is genocide in Iraq, some would say it's already happening even with us there, it won't be as a result of UN incompetence or the incompetence of the Democratic leadership or of the international community.

It will be from the abject arrogance and stupidity of this administration and the neo-con propaganda machine that deluded us into believing that destabilizing Iraq would be a net win for anyone.

BG, you put a whole bunch of words in my mouth. Typical Republicans tactics, shout down anyone with an opinion different than your own. Very boring.

Bolton did a whole lot of nothing to intervene in Sudan. Aside from private groups that are composed of right wing Evangelical Christians and left wing peace organizations who have donated their time, money, and risked personal injury to aide those in Darfur a lot of nothing has happened otherwise. The Bush administration has completely dropped the ball. Facts are facts and no amount of bile spewing will change them.

I'm with ya Larry, good points.