800,000 DEAD RWANDANS--Why Didn't Clinton do what was right?

Oh yeah....what am I talking about; Bill said sorry 4 years later.

How sizeable a role do expect this to play in the voting this Saturday, or on February 5th?

What portion of people do you think will go into the polling places with their decision of whom to vote for formed in contemplation of this matter?

which is why I'm reminding those who need reminding of all of those good things that the Clintons did for Black folks.

That charging President Clinton with the genocide in Rwanda will gain great numbers of votes for Sen. Obama?

If you hadn't noticed.

Does that ring a bell at all?

"Oh the tintinnabulation that so musically wells
From the bells, bells, bells, bells,
Bells, bells, bells -
From the jingling and the tinkling of the bells."

and it ain't a "leader".

Is this a song written to commemorate 800,000 deaths?
Just askin'? :shrug:

That Sen. Obama's campaign is not pursuing this line of agitation, and that charging President Clinton with the Rwandan genocide is not a regular feature of his stump speech and rallies? You are not worried he is missing a good bet that would surely put him over the top in the present primary campaign?

"Once you have decided on a murder, first you must make a stone out of your heart."

and what happened there.

For a long, long time, sir.

Even if you don't find it a worthy subject.

and I'll go about my business remember rather current history.

But thank you for the debate.

It was appreciated.

Sir.

logic sails over the head of Frenchie, after her dismissive "thank you", which means she isn't processing any opinion, except what rattles around her "kewl" head.

"It is not going to feature in the primary campaign"

So? Look at all the other garbage that isn't going to feature in the campaign either.
It shouldn't stop anyone from talking about this.

I know what you mean, but still it shouldn't stop anyone from learning about it.
The fact is, we - as a nation - turned our back on Africa a long time ago.

However, the relation of the Rwandan genocide to this campaign could be that many people will draw parallels to in regards to Iraq when we leave - mass genocide and "a holy war" struggling for control of Iraq.
Our government has created a power vacuum in Iraq and they still haven't solved it.

But, that's just my opinion. Nobody can tell what the future of Iraq will be for sure.
Yet, we're still going to be here after the general election, and we will have to discuss what to do about Iraq and how we will react to the situations as they arise.

Ok... that made me chuckle. :)

that was good.

Sorry, but you are sounding a lot like the Clinton hating right wing nuts of the 90s. Everything is Bill Clinton's fault. Forget the people who actually did the killing. Forget Belgium and their part in the problems in Rwanda and the fact that they did nothing though they could have and should have. Forget that Clinton was not dictator and that every time he intervened overseas he got accused of wagging the dog. Forget that he was busy with all kinds of other matters domestic and international. It's all Bill Clinton's fault. His apology for not doing what he could at the time is not enough for you, oh no. Then what would you have to bash him with?

With Democrats like you what do we need right wing freaks for? Pathetic FC, truly pathetic.

Hillary is running on her "35 years of experience" and tells us that she is "ready on day one." That presumes that she's not excluding her husbands presidency. The inaction of the Clinton administration on Rwanda demonstrated that the Clinton administration was more concerned with the possibility that US government personnel would be dragged through the streets of Kigali a la Mogadishu. This calculation would seem to be motivated by domestic political concerns such as the 1994 mid-term elections and his appearance as not a bleeding heart liberal. Thus it was easy for Bill Clinton to ignore the reality of the unfolding situation in Rwanda as a product of ancient tribal hatreds, and especially since the Rwandan people were black Africans. If one watches the Clinton administration press conferences on the matter one will see just how craven U.S. foreign policy calculation can be.

What assurance do we have given the sub par performance of the Clinton administration on global human rights and Hillary's warmongering in Iraq that she understands the value of all human life?

Rwanda was no Cambodia. It was not the product of massive U.S. foreign policy failure, it was the failure itself. That is why this an issue and it honestly is not a smear and has very little to do with electing Barack Obama beyond the fact that he would undoubtedly do much to repair America's image around the globe.

repairing his image with democrats, let alone the rest of the world if he doesn't stop playing the victim.

It would have been great if we would have done something about Rwanda at the time. It is really tragic that we did not, but I don't see any Obama supporters writing about "why isn't Obama doing something in congress to get involved in the Sudan or Kenya". Hypocrites.

Hillary is running on her last 35 years of experience, not his. They are not the same person. He is not running. She wanted him to do something about Rwanda and he wishes he had listened to her. This is a silly non issue.


5 4 3 2 1... to impact of strawman response from some Obamaite.

See the problem with that is, there are 100 Senators and only 1 Commander in Chief and the latter has broad powers to intervene around the globe.

Her running on her husbands presidency is not a non-issue. But if we hold your logic to be true does that mean she's not allowed to mention anything about Bill's presidency

Clooney, senators urge action on Darfur
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/27/darfur.clooney/



Obama urges calm in Kenya

In a statement broadcast over U.S. government-funded Voice of America radio, Obama, who seeks to become America's first black president, said he was "deeply troubled" by the turmoil in the east African country.
----
"Despite irregularities in the vote tabulation, now is not the time to throw that strong democracy away," Obama said, one day before a contest in Iowa launches the state-by-state nominating contests in the 2008 White House race.

"Now is a time for President Kibaki, opposition leader Odinga, and all of Kenya's leaders to call for calm, to come together, and to start a political process to address peacefully the controversies that divide them," Obama said.

"Now is the time for this terrible violence to end.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080102/pl_nm/kenya_usa_obama_dc_1

What happens when the gender of those whom you're responding to is in question, or even if they are not male or female (transgendered)? :P

Serious question!

Then again you wouldn't be able to drink all the delicious, refreshing kool-aide you seem so dependent on...

If he wasn't responsible?

Or do you pass the buck with the bucket of Kool-aide your keep referring to? :shrug:

Our government is divided into multiple parts so that no one individual has total power.

How can someone be a leader, be commander in chief, and blame this on congress?

Can you show me the "SRB" (Save Rwandans Bill) that Clinton pushed, but was defeated?

You want to blame HRC for her vote in Congress for Iraq, but then you want to place all the blame on Bill Clinton for Rwanda. The only common theme here seems to be 'blame the Clintons'.

since her own record doesn't indicate very wise foreign policy, i.e., Iraq and Iran.... why is she so "ready from day one" to keep us safe from?

Nice...you're obviously a good Democrat.

don't you just not care?

You're obviously a good person-- To care so much about one woman....to the extend that "day one readiness" cannot be challenged via the memories of dead bodies.

You blame the president (Bill Clinton) for Rwanda while giving Congress a free pass, but then you blame Congress (ie. Hillary Clinton) for Iraq? If you really held Bill Clinton so responsible for Rwanda, how then can you place such full blame on Hillary Clinton for Iraq?

that's what I get out of these two issues.

Doing what is politically expedient seem to hold high regard in your book.

or 800,000 macheted to death folks?

the candidates.

But then, you know that.:think:

I am campaigning against restoring the Clintons to the throne of power.

I see it done everywhere here on DU. Are you in every thread objecting how the supporters are representing their candidate in a way that their candidate wouldn't want?

to the use of the race card.

My original post was merely a comment on what I have observed, then you asked for a clarification.

Glad our priorities are in order.

:hi:

that folks are attempting to dig up on other candidates.

Really...this was "dead" serious.

:shrug:

far as I'm concerned.

Aren't you the one that disses candidates to the point of no return for having an homophobic entertainer on a campaign stage without him there because it is like the KKK?

Well, 800,000 deaths should be something that might muster up a better comment than the one that you made, doncha think?

But then you know that, don't you?

Don't you?

Te Rwandan tragedy was horribly mismanaged by the US government. Both President Clinton and Albright have said it was THE thing they regret. As well they should. The French government was much more culpable than the US, but I think that a strong US response would have gotten the UN troops out and "real" troops in to quell the slaughter.

However, that has nothing to do with the primaries, and using the dead to spin Rev. Donnie is reprehensible.

But Bill Clinton is not running for office.

And Donnie McClurkin is far from the only issue for Barack Obama. He was just the thing that made some of us look harder at Obama--and we found we didn't like what we saw.

As you can see from my post count, I'm new, so my support may be worth jack, but I understand the sentiment.

For those who wonder what difference this makes for upcoming primaries -- a great deal; it speaks to the hope that Obama brings. Is it mere coincidence that I have seen more coverage of Africa, Kenya specifically, in the weeks since Iowa gave Obama some credibility? One man suddenly shone a light on an entire continent. A continent which America is all too capable of ignoring.

I focus on this continent because its name is used to describe me -- African-American. Personally, I call myself black, as it seems silly to align myself with an entire continent. I cannot trace my heritage past my great-grandparents, I cannot be more geographically specific than Africa. However, when I see people in this Africa killing and dying, they look like me, or like my siblings, or my cousins, or like friends who also obviously came from this Africa at some point years ago.

I am not arguing that any president focus solely on problems in Africa. I hope that we as Americans of all persuasions act to help any who are in distress. In this circumstance, we failed.

and welcome to DU!

"Clinton has talked repeatedly about how not acting in Rwanda was one of his biggest regrets. Had he listened to his wife, he said, history might have been different."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/12/11/his_big_regret_not_acting_in_rwanda/

In his autobiography, My Life, published in June, Clinton revisited his role in the Rwanda genocide. He again publicly flagellated himself for the apathy and indifference that insured the slaughter. He fingered domestic politics, a callous Congress, a timid UN, and the shell shock of his administration over the botched rescue operation in Somalia in October 1993 that resulted in the deaths of 18 American soldiers for his administration's inaction.
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/20872/

to get his wife elected.

Let me believe that. :eyes:

To do so would undercut the point of your OP, which is to attack Hillary Clinton's qualifications to be President. So since it can't be proved that Bill Clinton is telling the truth about Hillary's opinion regarding Rwanda, the default is he must be lying.

And for the record: Hedged as Bill Clinton's apology might have been about Rwanda that he made in person in Africa; it was extraordinarily unusual for an American President to make any such public acknowledgment of having failed the people of Africa about anything. And Bill Clinton has never been shy since he left office about calling his failure to act in Rwanda one of if not the biggest mistakes of his Presidency, long before his wife became a Presidential candidate.

Do you want to send U.S. troops to get in the middle of every country's internal disputes? Isn't this why we support the U.N.? To help calm and settle these kinds of problems?

If Bill screwed up, it was in sending U.S. troops to Bosnia, getting us bogged down in that dispute. There again, the U.N. should have done the job.

Same with Iraq. There was no reason Bill should have kept the no-fly zone filled with U.S. airmen and SOF.

Where would you like us to intervene next? Kenya's internal dispute? Which tribe should we back? I'd vote for staying out of it, letting the U.N. settle it. Same with Sudan.

Most of our troops are not peace-keepers. They're trained to fight, to win battles. Then, if a confrontation occurs, and our troops revert to violence, they're blamed for over-reacting. It's just their training taking over. If a U.S. platoon gets surrounded by angry people, and they shoot their way out, should we be surprised? Should we send in squads of prosecutors to second-guess the troops on the ground? To analyze their reactions under fire?

why would Hillary authorize going after Saddam in 2001? Was that a more pressing challenge? :shrug:

or for "enforcing" a no-fly zone during the WJC years.
And I wasn't "for" going after Saddam in 1991, with GHWB.

If someone needed to rescue poor little Kuwait from big bad Iraq, it should have been the U.N. I just figured Kuwait was a little country run by thugs, and it got swallowed by a bigger country run by thugs.

Authorizing the spending for anything to do with our troops in Iraq is just wrong. Except for authorizing spending for their safe withdrawal.

WJX and HRC will employ military action at the drop of a hat. I mean he invaded Bosnia from the word go. :sarcasm:

to some, I know. Cause Europe is more important to some, I know.

nearly 8 years after he left public office?

He was a very good president, but no one is that good.

You are confused with your dates. It is apparent that you weren't and arent "interested" in this chapter in world history.....and it is true, to some, it didn't matter much. Wasn't a priority to American interest.

I bet you wish he was president duing Katrina just so you could hold him directly responsible for that, too. Wait, I'll bet you can find a way.

for intervention. I dare you.

what could be done when the killing was being done by neighbors killing neighbors, and occasionally family members, with machetes. It was also an internal conflict, with the collusion of the Rwandan government, so the magnitude of it became clear as bodies were sighted floating downriver. It is what happens when one group convinces itself that everyone else is the "other". Even the churches exacerbated the killing by violating sanctuary and inviting the killers into the churches.
What do you think should have been done, when and with what tools (military, diplomacy, etc.)?

Is that the year Clinton was impeached? Maybe he had things on his mind......?

1998 was when he apologized.

They actively undercut the UN's efforts to stop the genocide.

His pathetic "apology" was rubbing salt in the wounds.

New Orleans is our government's responsibility, Rwanda was not. We should have done something but we were not responsible for what happened. We were responsible for what happened in N.O.

BTW do you know what nation had an actual obligation to act in Rwanda?

But I don't think it's constructive to keep dredging up events like that from the past. Clinton's failure over this issue has been widely discussed, and as it said in the article, Clinton apologized and said that his failure to deal forcefully with the genocide that happened there is one of the biggest regrets that he has about his presidency.

So what else do you want from Clinton on this? He screwed up big time and everyone knows it.

(These comments are coming from an Obama supporter BTW.)

you don't want to rain on Frenchie's Kewl parade, do you?

Who cares about logic or sense, when there is smearing to do. Gosh, don't you get Frenchie yet?

to the question "Why Didn't Clinton do what was right?" because it doesn't relate to the primaries, how about this question;
Who was advising Pres. Bill Clinton in 1994, especially on what the US should do in Rwanda?
Will or are those people advising Sen. Hillary Clinton if she is elected President?

I know Wes Clark lobbied to have us intervene to stop the genocide and has endorsed Sen. Clinton, but it's isn't like she listened to him when it came to the IWR.

How about Obama's?

In this country, we all deserve the democracy we receive.

why dont you ask Newt and Tom DeLay, or better yet, ask Obama to ask Newt
and Tom Delay - for sure they'll tell him why

When you dig yourself a hole so deep you cant get out it's always
Clinton's fault.

Every republican including booosh has been saying that for years.
and now you're repeating it.

"Oh Monica...yeah baby, ooh yeah...right there...ahhh...oh yeah, baby...that's my little gal...hurry up...you know who is stopping by soon...yeah! Oh....yeaaahhhh!"

:puke:

his father's homeland?

how come he has not uttered one word about it?

And there's not a glimmer of doubt in my mind that (a) the CIA and/or other US agencies were at least partly behind the slaughter, and (b) Bill knew exactly what was happening as it was happening.

How do I know this? Let's just say I do. And this is why I think Hilly must not be allowed under any circumstances to steal this race: the Clintons are as bad as pukes when it comes to caving in to the MIC.

by boosh and the telcos ATT and Verizon?

U.S. Senator. How come Obama was not a vocal leader opposing the killings in Riwanda?

called the leader of Kenya's opposition party to ask for peace.

Little tip from Bill.