Clinton regrets personal failure on Rwanda genocide

<<SNIP>>
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L23248200.htm

Clinton regrets personal failure on Rwanda genocide

KIGALI, July 23 (Reuters) - Former U.S. President Bill Clinton, visiting a Rwandan genocide memorial on Saturday, expressed regret for his "personal failure" to prevent the 1994 slaughter of 800,000 people.

On a brief visit to look at HIV/AIDS projects in the central African country, Clinton laid a wreath at a museum commemorating victims of the 100-day massacre by extremists from the Hutu majority which took place during his presidency.

"I express regret for my personal failure," he said before touring the museum, which features graphic images of people being decapitated and bodies twitching on the road.

"I think it faithfully, honestly, painfully presents the truth of the Rwandan genocide," he told reporters after seeing the museum which his Clinton Foundation partially funded.

<</SNIP>>

I don't know how he can even put himself in that situation, or talk about it, at this point.

Clinton feels horrible that the United States did not send in peace keeping forces soon enough. We sent in some, but by the time we did, it was already too late. So many people had already been killed.

What's interesting to me is that after the Rwanda genocide, the international community as a whole said "never again." They promised to never turn a blind eye to genocide. And guess what, they lied! Because people are being slaughterd in Sudan.

But I think it is a true mark of Clinton's character that he can basically say 'I messed up. I didn't do enough.'

Unlike what Bush thinks it isn't Americas duty to get involved with other countries problems.

I think we have an obligation to act whenever we see human atrocities being committeed. I think we had a moral obligation to do what we could in the Rwandan genocide, and we didn't do enough, soon enough!

by both the opposition and by his supposedly fellow party members, it's amazing he got anything done. It was ugly, and stupid, and the result is BFEE. I hope that Democrats, at least, have learned something from that exercise (but I'm not holding my breath, seeing as how they savaged Dean).

During the peak of the killings, Madelaine Albright was busy dissuading UN officials from making plans to send in African troops to help.

When it's something like what happened in Rwanda happens, it is our duty to get involved and STOP it. Genocide is unacceptable.

This is another difference between Clinton and Bush... Clinton admits mistakes and truly feels sorry.

taking personal responsibility for the failure of ANYTHING?

on second thought does anyone know where Saddam was when Bush had these errors in judgement?

even Reagan, who I despised, expressed regret over his slowness to act on the AIDS crisis

I agree.

Although Bush is making a huge mistake by not intervening in the Sudan, this probably isn't his biggest.

it's probably for the best that he ISN'T messing around in Darfur (although not for lack of trying). Of course, there could and probably is a lot of sub rosa action.

If ever any situation called for intervention, it would be the malAdministration. (Do we have to pray for a lightning strike, a la St. Paul?)

gave the Rightwing Fuckwads a reason to investigate his every move, and as Trent Lott said "support the troops without supporting the President" so even if he HAD sent troops into Rwanda, they would've quickly been pulled out before any effective work could've been done.

Wait, I'm starting to sound like a right-winger talking about Boosh!

:crazy:

It raised a thorny question of at what point does humanitarian intervention to stop genocide turn into neoconservative meddling in the affairs of another country and utopian nation building?

stopping genocide is a good thing. Always.

That seems like an easy one: it becomes meddling when the peacekeepers stop keeping the peace.

For example, I believe there's evidence that the Kosovo Albanians, once in power, started revenge killing and the US/UN forces ignored it. That feels like meddling to me: they should have been stopped too.

The peacekeepers should come in IMMEDIATELY and do whatever's needed to put a stop to killings and maimings.

Especially as we hear new justification for going into Iraq.

Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who tortured and murdered his own people. Don't tell me how we gave him weapons and helped his power grow in the 1980's, to me, this makes our moral responsibility to have stopped him greater.

Do we only intervene when it crosses the line from brutal repression to genocide? Because sometimes that line seems fuzzy.

So far, we have not seen it in Iraq, but what if the new Shi'a government gets it together and gets tired of the insurgency and waiting for America to take care of it, so they start rooting out, imprisoning and executing Sunnis. Their justification could be that these are insurgents - Saddam loyalists committed to destroying their democracy. But think of where that could lead.

Saddam Hussein did his worst doings while we supported him, and we did nothing. Later, we encouraged a Shia rebellion, and then let Hussein slaughter the uprising, we have blood on our hands.

The US imposed brutal sanctions on Iraq that hurt Iraqis more than Saddam Hussein ever could (4,000 children died a month because of the sanctions). We could have alleviated Iraq's greatest problem with no bloodshed whatsoever.

It would be better for Iraq if Saddam Hussein was in power and the US never invaded. This is clear. Countless civilians and Iraqi soldiers would have their lives, the country would not be obliterated, there would be no chaos, women would have rights....

The occupational governing has been as bad if not worse for Iraqis as Saddam, as torture, imprisonment without cause and horrible conditions in prisons is widespread. There is no democracy, do not be fooled by empty elections with no meaning. Iraqis have no power, save the gun. The US practices complete and total control over Iraq, Iraqis are subjected to this occupation with no voice. The insurgency is made up of many different groups, and the Saddam loyalist factions are not major at all (most are religious).

We also continue to support a large number of oppressive regimes around the world (Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan...). We would be invading most of the countries we support if we used "oppressive regimes" as a justification for invasion.

between ruining a country, creating horrible problems and perpetrating atrocities on a fairly stable nation; and stopping injustice. "Nation Building" is the same as base colonialism; fighting genocide and massacres is not the same at all.

It is not the act of intervention itself, but why it is done and how it is done. Our invasion of Iraq (not really intervention) has oppressed, greatly damaged and wronged Iraq; instead of helping a situation, we created a horrible situation.

Damn. That's new.

I was never a Clinton fan, but looking back, I'd give anything to roll back the clock a decade.

True leaders accept responsibility.

The republicans cry "personal responsibility" but never seem able to accept any of it.

Insecure and incapable people like Bush are unable to admit mistakes or failings.

Serious question - I don't know if he has.

Still not a fan, but this is a good gesture, even if way too little way too late.

so blatant. Anyone who has seen Hotel Rawanda knows that we were very negligent not to intervene. Clinton is right to take responsibility. Now he is helping to rectify the mistake by actions that make people's lives better. He is a true American hero, who may (and I do mean may) challenge Carter as the greatest ex-president. The two have no other competition.

After reading "We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed With Our Families: Stories from Rwanda" by Philip Gourevitch and seeing several documentaries on Rwanda more people than Clinton should feel ashamed for Rwanda.

One group that has escaped almost entire scrutiny is that of the Republicans in Congress. They told Clinton they would not authorize any US military assistance. Also, the US vetoed a UN resolution to use force as well. The bitterly ironic part of this is the loss of the soldiers in Somalia played a large role in the decision not to send American troops into Rwanda.

I actually thought Rwanda was going to be the thing that brought Clinton down, so imagine my surprise when most politicians seemed to barely give a shit and instead of the deaths of almost 1 million people, Clinton was instead hobbled by a sex scandal.

One man who showed true heroics was Romeo Dallaire, the UN General in charge in Rwanda. This man did all he could to do stop what was going on in Rwanda and paid for it with his soul. He is still living but tried several times to take his own life and now has a book about his experiences.

I just heard Clinton talking on Al Franken's show on Friday. He again reiterated his regret about Rwanda and talked about his Clinton Foundation efforts to reduce AIDS. Here is a man who is doing, not just talking. He is expending efforts to help people. He is using his very valuable popularity and name recognition to help people in dire need. What the hell else is there?

He puts so many politicians to shame!

Here's a president who's man enough to admit his failings.
Fancy that!

He has too great a need to be loved. Many of his failures can be traced directly to this one point.

Dragging the party to the right in order to "preserve" it was ludicrous: those who hate pluralism do not compromise. His tacit and overt support of the current nazis smacks of a desire to be rehabilitated, and he will never understand this: they hate him and will never give him a millimeter. Somewhere in there, he's got a sense of fairness, but he lives in a shockingly unfair world, and he simply can't accept this. It's hyperironic to think of someone who's such a good bare-knuckled political creature being a dewy-eyed naif who's blindsided by pure evil, but he's shown this time and time again.

Cynics would say that a pronouncement like this is a greasy attempt to curry favor, but that's simply not the case. He did and does regret this. Just as he defied the Russians and Republicans to intervene in Yugoslavia, he has a moral underpinning. Morals aren't--or shouldn't be--defined by infidelity, they should be defined by a sense of right and wrong. Sadly, though, he gets mixed marks on the latter because he tends to see the big picture and is far too willing to abet abuse in hopes of a greater good in the offing.

Simply put, Bill Clinton doesn't understand evil. It's there in his face, it's attacking him at every turn, yet he still thinks his adversaries have some core decency to which he can appeal. My jaw is on the floor.

His failings are legion, but his successes are just as startling. For a truly practical man to make such tactical errors--like gays in the military, just after becoming President--is breathtaking. More than anything else, he confounds. If I had more trust in him standing by his guns and fighting the good fight, I would pay out more slack, but his judgement is erratic, and he's hurt the party in the long run by dragging it to the right.

I have ever read. I tip my hat to you. I cannot decide whether Bill Clinton is the most naive public figure to ever live (meaning his own life experiences have left nary an emotional mark on him) or he's the biggest phony ever. Neither answer is very pretty-and both are maddening. I wonder what his response would be-I'd love to be able to confront him with these issues to his face.

...and seized it.

The recording of her confrontation with Clinton is still up on DemocracyNow.org. He lost his temper, not surprisingly, as she clearly had his number.

Simply put, Bill Clinton doesn't understand evil. It's there in his face, it's attacking him at every turn, yet he still thinks his adversaries have some core decency to which he can appeal. My jaw is on the floor.

No one who cozies up to Dick Morris is suffering from acute moral vision.

Rwanda should haunt Clinton. And it has company. Much the same myopia allowed him to starve and bomb Iraqi children for eight years in a campaign so ruthless it targeted water supplies. When we see his mouthpiece Albright waving away casualties in the hundreds of thousands, Clinton too stands revealed: a moral juvenile, scarcely more nuanced than George W. Bush in his adjudication of life and death for foreigners. Bush still has quite a way to go, in fact, to catch up with Clinton's body count.

So now he has "regrets." Well, Sinatra had a few, too. Unfortunately not only (but especially) for Rwanda, Clinton illustrates what happens when principles are pumped like unwanted cellulose from political life. What remains is something tanned yet skeletal--sleek enough to win, dead enough inside to lose sight of all that matters. He is the Hollow Man of late 20th century American politics:

We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats' feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar

http://plagiarist.com/poetry/1077/

Yeah, really. Go play some more golf with Poppy.

... albeit in a different guise and a slightly different locale:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/congo/2005/0107volatile.htm

I saw him a couple of years dance around it disgracefully, when asked about it by a college student at some event in Arkansas.

I say disgracefully because I thought better of him, I thought he was good enough to be president.

Thinking about how Bush would have answered such a question, the difference is striking in what I would expect. I would expect Bush not even to remotely understand why he should regret anything, he would respond defensively and immaturely, I would expect him to be FURIOUS at being asked it, and possibly that the questioner would suffer retaliation.

and on and on and on.

After all, he was the best president the repukes ever had.

I thought that was pretty cool of him. I didn't like how they rushed Bill off the air though like he was just some "normal" guest, I mean c'mon, he's the former f'n President here. And the last President legally elected to the job.

QUESTION: "Thank you, Mr. President.

In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa.

You've looked back before 9-11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9-11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have learned from it?"

BUSH: I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it.

John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could've done it better this way or that way. You know, I just -- I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn't yet."

sorry doesn't bring any of those people back to life.