News Did When Clinton Lied, No One Died Ignore Larger Issues?

[Mercator]

Some UN officials actually named the incident as an example of state-sponsored terrorism. But who cares about the labels? The results are the worst part.

Actually my question was academic. I don't care so much about what the UN officials think. Nobody seems to make the effort to empathize with the Sudanese. Why? Why was the whole world schocked with 9/11 and did not give a damn about the Khartoum terror act?

 

[Manchot]

On whether or not anyone had the right to investigate the president's sex life...
At my current job I work with several atractive females whom I have authority over. It is considered both unethical and a firable offense for me to "fraternize" with them let alone "get a BJ" from one. Why there would be any difference with regard to the president and someone working under him I have no clue.
On lying about the "BJ"... Lying is not considered an ethical practice in most situations and most especially when you are guilty of an unethical act. If receiving a "BJ" from a subordinate is generally considered unethical then lying about it is also unethical.

Ethicality \ne morality \ne legality. I think when people get that one fact straight, world peace will ensue.

On the bumber sticker focusing on lies and not deaths...
It is a very common practice to imply something in a statement such as this by throwing around information you want the listener/reader to pay attention to while supposedly talking about something else. This often avoids direct inquiry into information you don't want being brought up. So the underlying impression given by the staement being discussed is that Bush is responsable for deaths and Clinton is not. It does not directly state this but it is implied by the manner in which the statement is made.

So, I guess my question is this: what is your point? The same thing could be said about any political statement made by anyone.

By the way, Russ, you never addressed my inquiry about how my analogy was a bit of a stretch. The way I see it, unless you do so, the whole topic is moot.

 

[Skyhunter]

When in doubt, invoke Clinton

With everything going on in current politics, you are still hung up an Clinton?

Get over it russ.

 

[Informal Logic]

On whether or not anyone had the right to investigate the president's sex life...
At my current job I work with several atractive females whom I have authority over. It is considered both unethical and a firable offense for me to "fraternize" with them let alone "get a BJ" from one. Why there would be any difference with regard to the president and someone working under him I have no clue.
On lying about the "BJ"... Lying is not considered an ethical practice in most situations and most especially when you are guilty of an unethical act. If receiving a "BJ" from a subordinate is generally considered unethical then lying about it is also unethical.
On the bumber sticker focusing on lies and not deaths...
It is a very common practice to imply something in a statement such as this by throwing around information you want the listener/reader to pay attention to while supposedly talking about something else. This often avoids direct inquiry into information you don't want being brought up. So the underlying impression given by the staement being discussed is that Bush is responsable for deaths and Clinton is not. It does not directly state this but it is implied by the manner in which the statement is made.

It could be "that woman" was the aggressor--not an uncommon occurrence for men in power--or the possibility of being framed. Regardless, it appears it was consensual, so no sympathy for Monica from me. Unprofessional behavior per company policy could result in the company taking action, or the offended employee taking action, but this remains a civil matter and certainly not the basis for impeachment proceedings.

BTW, the slogan has been used on signs at protests for some time, so I think it originated in the anti war movement. It stands for more than just being a bumper sticker.

 

[Lisa!]

By request, a debunking of this rhetorical-nonsensical bumper sticker. For clarity, the complete thought that it is meant to imply would read:
'When Clinton lied about sex, no one died as a result, but when Bush lied about the WMD in Iraq, 2000+ American soldiers and countless Iraqis died as a result'
There are several glaring problems with this bumper sticker:
First, yes, it is trivially obviously true that no one died as a result of Clinton's lie about sex - but so what? Is lying the key or is it the blood that matters?

I admit I can never understand you. Once you say "there are more important things to do in this country than argue about an issue that changes very little..., but now you're blaming a president for telling lies about his sex life. I agree that there's a difference btw this 2. (since Bush isn't get involved in abortion issue personaly) But anyway both of them are as trivial as each other. In fact I was always surprised how on the Earth the US judical system allowed themselves to investigate in this case!
Seriously can't you see the differences btw these 2 lies? I don't think so.
I don't know what you're going to say by bringing up this argument. It's like I ask X about what he's done wrong. And he'd talk to me about what Y had done wrong in the past!

Anyway, Clinton isn't the president of US now and it's not so important what the hell he did during his presidency. I mean it's important but only for learning lessons. The important thing is ,what Bush is going to do in the future.


PS If you ask me to choose btw bad and worse, I'd choose bad=(clinton). For me Clinton was a dangerous and clever politician, but Bush is only a terrible joke.(I don't mean what he's doing sounnds funny to me, I mean I always ask myself how he got to become the president of the US for the second time! )

"When Clinton lied, no one died" - is factually true, but logically flawed and pointless and therefore just mindless, useless rhetoric.

You don't want to say Bush's a good present because the death are less during his presidency?

edit: Some may note that there are no links in this thread. The Somalia and Rwanda debacles are well-documented pieces of history and if people don't know what happened in those two incidents, you should be ashamed of yourself - but I'll provide some documentation if you need it.

For sure US troops and administration wouldn't be ashmed of themselves for what you said, because they fine know what they've done.

 

[russ_watters]

With everything going on in current politics, you are still hung up an Clinton?
Get over it russ.

Though I started the thread, I didn't bring this up, Skyhunter. I'd be prefecly happy to let Clinton go if he and the Democrats who idolize him would do so.

This thread is an offshoot of https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=97329&page=3" thread, started by a democrat and mentioning Clinton in the OP and the "when clinton lied no one died" was brought up by another democrat. This thread is a response to that.

I'll respond to more later...

 

[Skyhunter]

'When Clinton lied about sex, no one died as a result, but when Bush lied about the WMD in Iraq, 2000+ American soldiers and countless Iraqis died as a result'
There are several glaring problems with this bumper sticker:
First, yes, it is trivially obviously true that no one died as a result of Clinton's lie about sex - but so what?

There are no problems, it is accurate.

So turn it into something else so you can use it for an argument.

Is lying the key or is it the blood that matters? Clinton did cause the deaths of a great many people, so if that's the point of the bumper sticker (the deaths, not the lies), it misses its own point: Whether directly caused by a lie or just due to incompetence/failure to act shouldn't be relevant. Clinton's list is a healthy one. Off the top of my head: Somalia, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sudan, Afghanistan, the Cole, Khobar towers, WTC 1, 9/11. I'm sure I missed some.

Irrelevant, and you are using a double standard. Damning him for taking action, damning him for not taking action.

We can debate the depths of his screwups or compare body counts if you guys want, but the best example, to me, is probably Somalia. 18 soldiers and several thousand Somalians died as a result of a botched snatch-and-grab job. In the aftermath, the Secretary of Defense resigned because he personally denied a request for armor. But that was part of Clinton's policy on minimalistic warfare, and is absolutely his fault.
Though they aren't Americans (does that matter?), I consider the Rwanda thing worse. Upwards of a million people were hacked to death with machettes while military analysts figured we could have stopped it with 10,000 troops, in a matter of days. This failure to act (other countries hold some blame, but as always, we are the most capable of acting in that type of situation) was cited by numerous international investigations into the genocide. But even worse, many of those investigations concluded that mere international pressure could have had a big impact. Clinton failed to even denounce the genocide, or even label it as such, until long afterwards.

Your opinion intersprersed with a few facts.

Obvious, but less important is the assumption on which the slogan is based: that Bush lied.

Why when Bush lied is it less important than when Clinton lied?

Now the case for that is far from clear-cut, and while I have no desire to argue the case itself, I will say that it is irrelevant.

What is not clear cut about it?

He was told that Niger/Iraq/uranium connection was false.

He made the accusation in his State of the Union address knowing it was untrue.

What is lying, if not making statements you know to be false?

What matters is whether we were right or wrong to go into Iraq

Was invading Iraq the right thing to do?

- and no, even if it was based on a lie, that doesn't automatically make the actions wrong. Again, we can debate the right-ness or wrong-ness of the war till the cows come home, but that doesn't change the fact that the slogan is based on that logical fallacy (lie automatically equals wrong). I can hear the huffing already, but let me repeat that a little more directly: deception is not always wrong. And before you reply, stop and think about it: you already know that it's true. If not, search our philosophy forums for discussions about it before replying.

So from the jist of what you are saying Bush may have lied but that is irrelevant because we needed to attack Iraq anyway.

To sum-up:
"When Clinton lied, no one died" - is factually true, but logically flawed and pointless and therefore just mindless, useless rhetoric.
edit: Some may note that there are no links in this thread. The Somalia and Rwanda debacles are well-documented pieces of history and if people don't know what happened in those two incidents, you should be ashamed of yourself - but I'll provide some documentation if you need it.

Again I must ask, why are you so all charged up about Clinton?

And bumper stickers are rhetorical. However it isn't mindless or useless.

[edit] I would also add that lying is wrong, whether about sex or war. Clinton's lie did not constitute a high crime IMO. Bush's on the other hand is treason. IMO.

 

[Art]

Though they aren't Americans (does that matter?), I consider the Rwanda thing worse. Upwards of a million people were hacked to death with machettes while military analysts figured we could have stopped it with 10,000 troops, in a matter of days. This failure to act (other countries hold some blame, but as always, we are the most capable of acting in that type of situation) was cited by numerous international investigations into the genocide. But even worse, many of those investigations concluded that mere international pressure could have had a big impact. Clinton failed to even denounce the genocide, or even label it as such, until long afterwards.

Out of interest Russ, what do you think Clinton should have done?

Intervening in other people's civil wars rarely gains the gratitude of either side and although the Tutsis suffered by far the most casualties they weren't exactly the good guys either.

They had recently initiated a civil war in neighbouring Burundi (which still continues) by assassinating the newly elected president because he was a Hutu and they didn't want to relinguish power. They were also marching on the capital of Rwanda and did indeed take it thus ending the massacre of Tutsis and (starting the massacre of Hutus).

It is also worth noting that the vast majority of the killing was done in a matter of a few days so it is unlikely that any country could have assembled a force quickly enough to prevent the massacre.

Although the massacres were utterly deplorable it is hard to see how you can prevent two groups, each hell bent on exterminating the other side, from doing so and if you pick a side to support then you are aiding and abetting genocide yourself as both sides were guilty of the practice..

As for international pressure stopping the slaughter. I don't think so. The Hutu gov't started the slaughter because they were about to be arrested and charged for war crimes under a peace agreement and so had nothing to lose.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Ethicality \ne morality \ne legality. I think when people get that one fact straight, world peace will ensue.

One, I did not mention morality. Though dictionary definitions may not exactly argee with me I consider "morals" to be predominantly faith based and "ethics" to be based purely on logic.
Secondly, the law, and hence legality, is based on "ethics" or rather logical conclusions about the proper manner by which to interact in an orderly and functional society. Or at least it should be.
The day people get a clue world peace should ensue.

So, I guess my question is this: what is your point? The same thing could be said about any political statement made by anyone.

Hence my statement including the words "common practice".
I bring this up in response to those that say the statement is about lies and not about deaths. The matter of deaths is obviously implied.
And just to be clear I am not implying that Clinton was ever responsable for any deaths in this statement.

It could be "that woman" was the aggressor--not an uncommon occurrence for men in power--or the possibility of being framed. Regardless, it appears it was consensual, so no sympathy for Monica from me. Unprofessional behavior per company policy could result in the company taking action, or the offended employee taking action, but this remains a civil matter and certainly not the basis for impeachment proceedings.

Largely irrelevant. If someone subordinate to my authority were to make sexual advances towards me and we had consentual "sexual relations" I would still be dismissed from my position. Again I see no reason why this should differ with regard to the president especially considering that his position is of vastly greater importance than mine and as such should demand a higher standard of professionalism.
Considering the basis for impeachment, how else would you go about dimissing the president of the United States of America for misconduct? Would you just hand him his walking papers and tell him to clear out of the oval office?

 

[The Smoking Man]

One, I did not mention morality. Though dictionary definitions may not exactly argee with me I consider "morals" to be predominantly faith based and "ethics" to be based purely on logic.
Secondly, the law, and hence legality, is based on "ethics" or rather logical conclusions about the proper manner by which to interact in an orderly and functional society. Or at least it should be.
The day people get a clue world peace should ensue.
Hence my statement including the words "common practice".
I bring this up in response to those that say the statement is about lies and not about deaths. The matter of deaths is obviously implied.
And just to be clear I am not implying that Clinton was ever responsable for any deaths in this statement.
Largely irrelevant. If someone subordinate to my authority were to make sexual advances towards me and we had consentual "sexual relations" I would still be dismissed from my position. Again I see no reason why this should differ with regard to the president especially considering that his position is of vastly greater importance than mine and as such should demand a higher standard of professionalism.
Considering the basis for impeachment, how else would you go about dimissing the president of the United States of America for misconduct? Would you just hand him his walking papers and tell him to clear out of the oval office?

Okay, since you are talking about 'world' peace, who's 'ethics' shall we judge by? Who's version of 'justice'?

Shall we go by the 'open commune' model where sexuality is largely irellevent or Arabian law where the woman would be stoned?

As far as I know, levels of morality are a problem even within the USA. What's good in Salt Lake City and Boston may not be the same as the standards in Long Beach or Las Vegas.

So, will you enjoy the 'extreme' Mormon attitude of having sex through a hole in a sheet?

 

[Manchot]

One, I did not mention morality. Though dictionary definitions may not exactly argee with me I consider "morals" to be predominantly faith based and "ethics" to be based purely on logic.

Yeah, I just threw in morality for good measure. It was not specifically targeted at you.

Secondly, the law, and hence legality, is based on "ethics" or rather logical conclusions about the proper manner by which to interact in an orderly and functional society. Or at least it should be.

Well, the law shouldn't always follow ethics (except perhaps with regards to professionals such as lawyers and doctors). Is it ethical for someone to cheat on his wife with his secretary/intern? Certainly not. Should it be made illegal? Certainly not.

Okay, since you are talking about 'world' peace, who's 'ethics' shall we judge by?

To be fair, I was the one who first mentioned "world peace."

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Okay, since you are talking about 'world' peace, who's 'ethics' shall we judge by? Who's version of 'justice'?
Shall we go by the 'open commune' model where sexuality is largely irellevent or Arabian law where the woman would be stoned?
As far as I know, levels of morality are a problem even within the USA. What's good in Salt Lake City and Boston may not be the same as the standards in Long Beach or Las Vegas.
So, will you enjoy the 'extreme' Mormon attitude of having sex through a hole in a sheet?

Considering these things via logic we must take into account that the majority may not agree with the conclusions of the minority(i.e. the majority did not agree that Clinton should have been dismissed for getting a "BJ" from a chubby intern.). Due to this, in deciding what is most conducive to a functional society, we need also consider that what looks good on paper may not work out so well in practice. If a piece of legislation is likely to produce more dysfunction than the "problem" it is meant to fix it should then be deemed illogical to pass and inforce it.
The matter of differing "ethical models" is taken care of by virtue of separate legislative powers in the higherarchy(international, federal, state, county, city) and the representation of these models via elected officials. At least this takes care of that matter in theory and so far seems to work relatively well. Perhaps there is a better way, and if we find it I would support it.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Well, the law shouldn't always follow ethics (except perhaps with regards to professionals such as lawyers and doctors). Is it ethical for someone to cheat on his wife with his secretary/intern? Certainly not. Should it be made illegal? Certainly not.

Thinking about it it would probably be more appropriate for me to have said that laws should be based on what is logically shown to be detrimental to a functional society. The other way seems to imply forcing a concept of propriety on someone rather than keeping them from acting out in an improper manner. There is a bit of difference there I think. I also think we are getting a bit off topic.

 

[Les Sleeth]

People lie all the time. Even sweet, innocent children lie when they think the truth will hurt themselves or others. Do we judge them forever evil for that?

I saw an episode of "America's Funniest Home Videos" where a little girl was caught by her mother putting on mom's makeup. The mom asked "have you been using mommy's makeup," and the mom asked it clearly amused with and feeling love for her daughter. Still the little girl lied, her face quite obviously painted to the hilt for mom to see.

Now, would anyone seriously equate that lie to the lie a kidnapper tells a child to get her in his car so he can rape and murder her?

The law itself distinguishes between acts done maliciously and acts done carelessly or innocently that result in harm. Intent is far more important than the technical act of a lie.

If I tell you a lie purposely intended to harm you, or make to selfishly myself billions of dollars at the expense of others, etc. . . . is that equal to the lie told to avoid embarrassment? You can decide this easily by asking yourself what lie you would prefer to be told, and if you are perfect in this respect.

Having said all that, I am not sure President Bush didn't have good intentions with his lies. I am just as unwilling to judge Clinton for wanting to avoid the huge embarrassment and pain he was going to cause his wife, family, friends and constituents.

Political opportunism is quite the spectacle isn't it?

 

[The Smoking Man]

The matter of differing "ethical models" is taken care of by virtue of separate legislative powers in the higherarchy(international, federal, state, county, city) and the representation of these models via elected officials. At least this takes care of that matter in theory and so far seems to work relatively well. Perhaps there is a better way, and if we find it I would support it.

But wasn't WORLD peace the bone of contention?

America is actually in the minority when put beside China and India.

We're looking at an international standard when we judge leaders for 'world peace'.

Maybe the Vatican sees a problem negotiating with a man who gets BJs?

 

[Manchot]

Maybe the Vatican sees a problem negotiating with a man who gets BJs?

To my knowledge, the Pope did not once mention Bill Clinton's affair publicly. If he did, it was probably only once or twice. Furthermore, the Catholic Church does not cut its ties to nations because its leader had an affair. On the other hand, both John Paul II and Benedict have denounced the Iraq war over and over again.

Point is, the BJ did not decrease our status in the world's eyes. (If anything did, it was the circus that ensued.) However, the Iraq war most certainly has.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

But wasn't WORLD peace the bone of contention?
America is actually in the minority when put beside China and India.
We're looking at an international standard when we judge leaders for 'world peace'.
Maybe the Vatican sees a problem negotiating with a man who gets BJs?

I think the "World Peace" comments were just quips that we weren't really taking very seriously.
I'm quite sure that by the "world peace" measure Clinton would undoubtedly outstripe Bush.
I'm considering starting a thread regarding Ethics & Government so we don't side track this one any more but I think we've already had one not that long ago.



More on topic.
Does anyone here believe that Clinton lied when he said he was not properly informed about the Rawanda situation?
How comparable would this lie be to the lie about WMD in your opinion?
*note I have not said it is just as bad nor would I. I do how ever think that such a comparison would be more appropriate than comparing BJs to bombs.

 

[The Smoking Man]

To my knowledge, the Pope did not once mention Bill Clinton's affair publicly. If he did, it was probably only once or twice. Furthermore, the Catholic Church does not cut its ties to nations because its leader had an affair. On the other hand, both John Paul II and Benedict have denounced the Iraq war over and over again.
Point is, the BJ did not decrease our status in the world's eyes. (If anything did, it was the circus that ensued.) However, the Iraq war most certainly has.

However, wasn' tKerry denied the sacraments because he came out pro-abortion in his platform?

 

[The Smoking Man]

I think the "World Peace" comments were just quips that we weren't really taking very seriously.
I'm quite sure that by the "world peace" measure Clinton would undoubtedly outstripe Bush.
I'm considering starting a thread regarding Ethics & Government so we don't side track this one any more but I think we've already had one not that long ago.
More on topic.
Does anyone here believe that Clinton lied when he said he was not properly informed about the Rawanda situation?
How comparable would this lie be to the lie about WMD in your opinion?
*note I have not said it is just as bad nor would I. I do how ever think that such a comparison would be more appropriate than comparing BJs to bombs.

But then, the Republicans didn't try to impeech him over that though, did they?

THAT's the true aim of the sticker.

First they hit him with Whitewater and then that morphed into the 'affair' when they went on the fishing expedition. I don't seem to remember Ken Star pointing out anything to do with Rawanda.

Heck he even presided over the bombing of the Chinese embassy and got away with saying 'ooooops'.

 

[Mercator]

But then, the Republicans didn't try to impeech him over that though, did they?
THAT's the true aim of the sticker.
First they hit him with Whitewater and then that morphed into the 'affair' when they went on the fishing expedition. I don't seem to remember Ken Star pointing out anything to do with Rawanda.
Heck he even presided over the bombing of the Chinese embassy and got away with saying 'ooooops'.

Yes, while we had to avoid walking alone on the streets in Shanghai for fear of being mistaken for an American.

 

[Manchot]

However, wasn' tKerry denied the sacraments because he came out pro-abortion in his platform?

Not officially. Only a few individuals did so.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Things will only get better when Bush decides it's time for Iran. The Chinese will really like that.

Lahaut ... DUUUUDE! Glad to see you joined us ... Welcome.

 

[Polly]

Yes, while we had to avoid walking alone on the streets in Shanghai for fear of being mistaken for an American.

Very wise, these days I don't even want to show people the way if I suspect they are some bloody Americans.

"We are Americans. Americans!"

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Okay, I just read all through this thread, and if I have learned something, it is the following:

1. "When Clinton lied, no-one died" is refuted by the fact that Clinton lied, and on some other occassions some people died, mostly not directly due to any decision Clinton made, or for better reasons than Iraq, despite these things not being related in anyway. (Surely a better argument would be to show that at the very moment Clinton lied, someone somewhere died. Someone dies somewhere every second or so. Makes more sense.)

2. Not intervening in internal conflict in another country makes you the direct cause of that conflict.

3. Having a private sex life is comparable to

Rape, incest, child abuse, drug abuse (heck - speeding!)

4. Extra-marital sex always has a victim. Guess the crime rate must have shot up in the late 60s, early 70s.

5. Taking things out of context makes a reasonable argument.

6. Russ said:

I have a particular sexual interest in 8 year old boys.

7. Having sex in your own home is:

disgraceful and disrespectful to the American people

As always, grateful for my education.

 

[Anttech]

El Hombre Invisible: LMAO... Nice summary!

 

[Zlex]

In April 1994, with full control of both houses of Congress and the White House, the Clinton Administration made an effort only to put off official use of the word 'genocide' to refer to an event that records now released show it knew to be a 'genocide,' and subseqeunctly lied about, in an act of political expediancy. Instead, we were treated to the linguistic gymnastics of 'acts of genocide,' because to acknowledge the geneocide as a genocide would have admitted a legal and moral obligation to back up that now forever meaningless promise of 'never again.' IOW, it would have acknowledged an obligation that factually existed, that the Clinton Administration knew factually existed, and which it was striving only to avoid for short term political gain.

As a result, 800,000 were murdered in Rwanda, with UN troops on the ground, begging the West including our friends in Europe for support to end an ongoing genocide, and finding no support forthcoming(except in support of the cut and run)saving what few they could simply by having the spine to stand in front of a church and tell children armed with machetes, "No, you cannot do this."

OK, now those were the facts, here is the punchline:

"At least when Clinton lied, nobody died."

Well, that was pretty lame, too, considering the facts now pouring out, and the long overdue bills being paid.

"I didn't know" does not wash; verifiably, a costly lie, covering up a cowardly act of political self interest.

Not that it helped; the '94 elections were a spanking.


When pressed by a young female student on camera, he was sufficiently distracted to come close. Strike that, bad choice of words: nearly admit to ****ing something up.

Never mind the self serving math in the following example (ie, "about half" of 800,000 is a limp wristed hand waving 'cupple a hunert thousand'):

March 1998

Pres. BILL CLINTON: I have come today to pay the respects of my nation to all who suffered and all who perished in the Rwandan genocide. It may seem strange to you here, especially the many of you who lost members of your family, but all over the world, there were people like me, sitting in offices day after day after day, who did not fully appreciate the depth and the speed with which you were being engulfed by this unimaginable terror.

NARRATOR: In his remarks, which were billed as an apology, Clinton did say the U.S. had made mistakes, but he never actually said he was sorry. He met with survivors and heard the human consequences of his policy of non-intervention, and then he left.

May, 2003, University of Arkansas

STUDENT: Mr. President, the lack of intervention in Rwanda-- can you tell us why the U.S. didn't intervene?

Pres. BILL CLINTON: I think that the people that were bringing these decisions to me felt that the Congress was still reeling from what had happened in Somalia, and by the time they finally-- you know, I sort of started focusing on this and seeing the news reports coming out of it, it was too late to do anything about it. And I feel terrible about it because I think we could have sent 5,000, 10,000 troops there and saved a couple hundred thousand lives. I think we could have saved about half of them. But I'll always regret that Rwandan thing. I will always feel terrible about it.

"the people that were bringing these decisions to me..."

"by the time they finally--

"I think we could have..."

"I think we could have..."

Who exactly was POTUS/CIC during 'the committee' years?

Pussies should never be CIC. He totally lied, as is evident, about not knowing the details. The ICRC broke a long standing tradition of silence/neutrality and was lighting up the lines from the early days of the genocide. There were reporters on site providing running commentary ont he slaughter. Gen. Dellaire was on the ground asking for more troops before the slaughter began, and Kofi(head of UN Peacekeeping at the time)was cowering in NY telling him not only "no" but, absolutely do not use the meager force he already have. ANd then...the US gov't spent months finessing the use of the word '
genocide' into a weasely 'acts of genocide' and/or 'genocide-like' as if Miller Brewing Company were providing the machetes to those easily cowed teenagers.

Once again, the world knew about what was going on in Rwanda, and did nothing. The workld knew what was going on in Iraq, and did nothing.

Until, somebody took the politically unpopular step of doing something, in a world filled with excuses not to.

Well, as the bumnper stickers should have said:

"800,000. But, at least when Clinton lied...nobody white died."

 

[deckart]

In April 1994, with full control of both houses of Congress and the White House, the Clinton Administration made an effort only to put off official use of the word 'genocide' to refer to an event that records now released show it knew to be a 'genocide,' and subseqeunctly lied about, in an act of political expediancy. Instead, we were treated to the linguistic gymnastics of 'acts of genocide,' because to acknowledge the geneocide as a genocide would have admitted a legal and moral obligation to back up that now forever meaningless promise of 'never again.' IOW, it would have acknowledged an obligation that factually existed, that the Clinton Administration knew factually existed, and which it was striving only to avoid for short term political gain.
As a result, 800,000 were murdered in Rwanda, with UN troops on the ground, begging the West including our friends in Europe for support to end an ongoing genocide, and finding no support forthcoming(except in support of the cut and run)saving what few they could simply by having the spine to stand in front of a church and tell children armed with machetes, "No, you cannot do this."
OK, now those were the facts, here is the punchline:
"At least when Clinton lied, nobody died."
Well, that was pretty lame, too, considering the facts now pouring out, and the long overdue bills being paid.
"I didn't know" does not wash; verifiably, a costly lie, covering up a cowardly act of political self interest.
Not that it helped; the '94 elections were a spanking.
When pressed by a young female student on camera, he was sufficiently distracted to come close. Strike that, bad choice of words: nearly admit to ****ing something up.
Never mind the self serving math in the following example (ie, "about half" of 800,000 is a limp wristed hand waving 'cupple a hunert thousand'):
"the people that were bringing these decisions to me..."
"by the time they finally--
"I think we could have..."
"I think we could have..."
Who exactly was POTUS/CIC during 'the committee' years?
Pussies should never be CIC. He totally lied, as is evident, about not knowing the details. The ICRC broke a long standing tradition of silence/neutrality and was lighting up the lines from the early days of the genocide. There were reporters on site providing running commentary ont he slaughter. Gen. Dellaire was on the ground asking for more troops before the slaughter began, and Kofi(head of UN Peacekeeping at the time)was cowering in NY telling him not only "no" but, absolutely do not use the meager force he already have. ANd then...the US gov't spent months finessing the use of the word '
genocide' into a weasely 'acts of genocide' and/or 'genocide-like' as if Miller Brewing Company were providing the machetes to those easily cowed teenagers.
Once again, the world knew about what was going on in Rwanda, and did nothing. The workld knew what was going on in Iraq, and did nothing.
Until, somebody took the politically unpopular step of doing something, in a world filled with excuses not to.
Well, as the bumnper stickers should have said:
"800,000. But, at least when Clinton lied...nobody white died."

Wow, I did not know this about Clinton.

 

[Anttech]

The world knew what was going on in Iraq, and did nothing.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt until that line, what are you inferring?

I would prefer (And the rest of the world would, any non american here want to back me up or not) a Non-engaging Liberal Government in the US, than a Full on engaged fingers in the ears, Neocon government! (Although I don’t believe that Clinton was non-engaged)

You CANNOT blame the Rwanda crisis on Clinton... you can say he made a mistake by not helping stop the massive internal problems there, but it was NOT his fault... Its like putting someone in Jail because they witnessed a Murder, and didnt stop that murder

Now the Iraq war, we CAN blame Bush. He ordered the troops in on the back of Lies and deception... Thats the difference.

 

[deckart]

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt until that line, what are you inferring?

I would prefer (And the rest of the world would, any non american here want to back me up or not) a Non-engaging Liberal Government in the US, than a Full on engaged fingers in the ears, Neocon government! (Although I don’t believe that Clinton was non-engaged)

You CANNOT blame the Rwanda crisis on Clinton... you can say he made a mistake by not helping stop the massive internal problems there, but it was NOT his fault... Its like putting someone in Jail because they witnessed a Murder, and didnt stop that murder

Now the Iraq war, we CAN blame Bush. He ordered the troops in on the back of Lies and deception... Thats the difference.

800,000 people were murdered and he could have easily done something but he was to chickens**t to do anything about it. That's horrendous.

 

[Zlex]

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt until that line, what are you inferring?

I would prefer (And the rest of the world would, any non american here want to back me up or not) a Non-engaging Liberal Government in the US, than a Full on engaged fingers in the ears, Neocon government! (Although I don’t believe that Clinton was non-engaged)

I do not believe the war in Iraq was based on lies. Continuous covert operations in Iraq since 1991 to overthrow Saddam Hussein. We egg on the Kurds and Sh'ia to do what the most powerful nation on Earth authorized privately, funded, and said needed to be done, but was unwilling publicly to do. 1996, we watch from 15000 ft in 30 million dollar fighter jets while Saddam sends his ground forces North and SOuth to wipe out the folks we just spent years encouraging to revolt, people who thought they had the USA covering their back. Oooops. Sorry. No clothes there, indeed. Many, many Iraqis died while we shamefully did nothing. 1998, Clinton goes to Congress, asks for addtional authorization for covert action in Iraq to finally get Saddam, Congress says 'only at the price of publicly passing the Iraq Liberation Act', which he signs.

FInally, regime change in the US. GWB tells his folks, let's stop ****ing around and actually do what everybody around here for ten years has actively claimed needed to be done.

Gesture politics, like 'genocide-lite' is put on a back burner.

The karaoke box is unplugged.

The empty pizza boxes are thrown out.

Folks who must think that Bob Kerrey, senior Demnocrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, is a liar, ask the rest of us to ignore US policy in Iraq for the entire decade of the 90's and instead narrowly focus on 'nuh-uh, they was just WMD programs, not wharehouses stacked with crap' as if that logistics detail meant anything in the least to the long term threat from Saddam&Sons.


Well, sorry, I believe Bob Kerrey when he said what he said, I don't think GWB suddenly sprang onto the scene in January 2001 with a brand new idea from Texas, a new direction for the government of the USA. What the self declared best minds of government in the USA had decided needed to be done, continuously if not effectively, since 1991 was still the case in 2001. The difference is, GWB actualy did what we said needed to be done, and what he said he would do.

The USA acted credibly, for a change. The cut and run and hide behind the fig leaf of UN inaction 'world community' chafed at this, becuase in one fell swoop, GWB recalled all those triplicate punched tickets of continued inaction. Of course 'that" world community hates him for doing that. "That" world community loved the US when we gave face saving cover to Belgium during the shameful Rwanda fiasco, "Yes, we, the USA, the worlds only remaining superpower, are abject cowards, too." "That" world community has no problem with US forces in Bosnia and Kosovo helping Europe wipe its own ass to this very day, "That" world community loved it to the tune of billions of dollars per year when Kofi&Co were running Iraq and the Oil for Food program.

**** "that" world community, and shame on it.


And I do blame Clinton/World Community for Rwanda. If they had not lied, the US/UN would have legally had to do something. Billy went to great lengths(well, Billy sent Mad Albright to the UN)to make sure the official description of 800,000 murdered Rwandans was merely 'genocide-like,' not actual genocide, lest it look like Billy was cowering in the Oral Office, nose to the polls, hoping nobody noticed how he screwed the other pooch in Somalia.

Less filling; tastes great. The Humanitarian Peace Mongers got to build their little peaceful piece of the world, and wasn't that a spectacular success?

Other than the 800,000 corpses, that is.

Fortunately, they were blessed with having been macheted to death with hand hewn tools, and there were plenty of blankets on hand to hand out should any of those 800,000 have made a miraculous return trip from the butcher shop.

A great steaming monument to 'non-beligerence/war is not the answer' at any cost.

It was (non US) armed troops that finally stopped the bloodshed and mayhem. Turns out, war was the answer.

 

[Anttech]

I do not believe the war in Iraq was based on lies. Continuous covert operations in Iraq since 1991 to overthrow Saddam Hussein. We egg on the Kurds and Sh'ia to do what the most powerful nation on Earth authorized privately, funded, and said needed to be done, but was unwilling publicly to do. 1996, we watch from 15000 ft in 30 million dollar fighter jets while Saddam sends his ground forces North and SOuth to wipe out the folks we just spent years encouraging to revolt, people who thought they had the USA covering their back. Oooops. Sorry. No clothes there, indeed. Many, many Iraqis died while we shamefully did nothing. 1998, Clinton goes to Congress, asks for addtional authorization for covert action in Iraq to finally get Saddam, Congress says 'only at the price of publicly passing the Iraq Liberation Act', which he signs.

And the moral is America isn't the Answer its the problem?

It was (non US) armed troops that finally stopped the bloodshed and mayhem. Turns out, war was the answer.

War is never the answer, its the problem

 

[Art]

I do not believe the war in Iraq was based on lies. Continuous covert operations in Iraq since 1991 to overthrow Saddam Hussein. We egg on the Kurds and Sh'ia to do what the most powerful nation on Earth authorized privately, funded, and said needed to be done, but was unwilling publicly to do. 1996, we watch from 15000 ft in 30 million dollar fighter jets while Saddam sends his ground forces North and SOuth to wipe out the folks we just spent years encouraging to revolt, people who thought they had the USA covering their back. Oooops. Sorry. No clothes there, indeed. Many, many Iraqis died while we shamefully did nothing. 1998, Clinton goes to Congress, asks for addtional authorization for covert action in Iraq to finally get Saddam, Congress says 'only at the price of publicly passing the Iraq Liberation Act', which he signs.
FInally, regime change in the US. GWB tells his folks, let's stop ****ing around and actually do what everybody around here for ten years has actively claimed needed to be done.
Gesture politics, like 'genocide-lite' is put on a back burner.
The karaoke box is unplugged.
The empty pizza boxes are thrown out.
Folks who must think that Bob Kerrey, senior Demnocrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, is a liar, ask the rest of us to ignore US policy in Iraq for the entire decade of the 90's and instead narrowly focus on 'nuh-uh, they was just WMD programs, not wharehouses stacked with crap' as if that logistics detail meant anything in the least to the long term threat from Saddam&Sons.
Well, sorry, I believe Bob Kerrey when he said what he said, I don't think GWB suddenly sprang onto the scene in January 2001 with a brand new idea from Texas, a new direction for the government of the USA. What the self declared best minds of government in the USA had decided needed to be done, continuously if not effectively, since 1991 was still the case in 2001. The difference is, GWB actualy did what we said needed to be done, and what he said he would do.
The USA acted credibly, for a change. The cut and run and hide behind the fig leaf of UN inaction 'world community' chafed at this, becuase in one fell swoop, GWB recalled all those triplicate punched tickets of continued inaction. Of course 'that" world community hates him for doing that. "That" world community loved the US when we gave face saving cover to Belgium during the shameful Rwanda fiasco, "Yes, we, the USA, the worlds only remaining superpower, are abject cowards, too." "That" world community has no problem with US forces in Bosnia and Kosovo helping Europe wipe its own ass to this very day, "That" world community loved it to the tune of billions of dollars per year when Kofi&Co were running Iraq and the Oil for Food program.
**** "that" world community, and shame on it.
And I do blame Clinton/World Community for Rwanda. If they had not lied, the US/UN would have legally had to do something. Billy went to great lengths(well, Billy sent Mad Albright to the UN)to make sure the official description of 800,000 murdered Rwandans was merely 'genocide-like,' not actual genocide, lest it look like Billy was cowering in the Oral Office, nose to the polls, hoping nobody noticed how he screwed the other pooch in Somalia.
Less filling; tastes great. The Humanitarian Peace Mongers got to build their little peaceful piece of the world, and wasn't that a spectacular success?
Other than the 800,000 corpses, that is.
Fortunately, they were blessed with having been macheted to death with hand hewn tools, and there were plenty of blankets on hand to hand out should any of those 800,000 have made a miraculous return trip from the butcher shop.
A great steaming monument to 'non-beligerence/war is not the answer' at any cost.
It was (non US) armed troops that finally stopped the bloodshed and mayhem. Turns out, war was the answer.

Total and utter nonsense right down to the last sentence.

 

[Anttech]

I won't deny Bush may be decisive.. But any decision maker is only as good as the decision he makes.. Bush has made some very bad decision, only time will tell how bad...

 

[Informal Logic]

And the moral is America isn't the Answer its the problem?



War is never the answer, its the problem

Everyone has the right to his or her opinion, though it is preferable that the opinion is based on accurate information. The majority of Americans and the world believe the war in Iraq was based on lies. I guess this is what is important.

 

[Anttech]

When I say America, I don't mean the people I mean the Policies of your government.. sorry for the confusion or if I insulted you or anyone

 

[edward]

Wow, I did not know this about Clinton.

You guys need to be giving some links for your sources: Especially quotes.

By Eric Reeves
April 30, 2005 — Attention to Darfur’s staggering death toll---which has grown to approximately 400,000 over the course of more than two years of genocidal conflict---has increased dramatically in the past several months.

http://www.sudantribune.com/article.php3?id_article=9364

So it appears that Sudan has become Bush's Rwanda. And what does Bush do? He threatens Sudan with economic sanctions, but oops he can't do that, it would affect American companies doing business there.
Nice try at spinning away from the current world problems by giving some stats on Clinton, but no cigar. Clinton never lied about Rwanda and I challege you to find a credible link that indicates that he did.

 

[Anttech]

here you go

Source

 

[Informal Logic]

When I say America, I don't mean the people I mean the Policies of your government.. sorry for the confusion or if I insulted you or anyone

No, not at all - I agree with your post. And it seems some people post without reading through the thread - Either that or they are wearing blinders. It would be helpful if they provided sources and not just post a personal op-ed.

 

[edward]

here you go

Source

I only find one sided info on that source.

 

[The Smoking Man]

In April 1994, with full control of both houses of Congress and the White House, the Clinton Administration made an effort only to put off official use of the word 'genocide' to refer to an event that records now released show it knew to be a 'genocide,' Yadda ... Yadda ... Yadda

Zlex,

If that is true:

then every little thing going on in the world from Somalia to Zimbabwe is now Bush's fault.

then every death in some banana republic during his time in office is Bush's fault.

then George Bush Sr. is at fault for not removing Saddam from office 14 years ago and allowing the OFF Scandle to develop as a result.​

Your logic is severely flawed.

All you did was prove that Clinton HAD a conscience and a good heart for regretting what happened in Rwanda.

Did he cause it? No.

Did he produce the conditions that caused it? No.

Does he regret that it happened? Yes.

Do you regret that it happened? Do you regret that the USA has not gone into Somalia or Zimbabwe? Do you regret the lack of action in the Sudan? Do you believe that Bush should be vilified for his non-action in these incidents?

Or are you just creating a rather large straw man to draw attention away from the deaths in Iraq?

 

[Zlex]

Zlex,
If that is true:

then every little thing going on in the world from Somalia to Zimbabwe is now Bush's fault.
then every death in some banana republic during his time in office is Bush's fault.
then George Bush Sr. is at fault for not removing Saddam from office 14 years ago and allowing the OFF Scandle to develop as a result.​

Your logic is severely flawed.
All you did was prove that Clinton HAD a conscience and a good heart for regretting what happened in Rwanda.
Did he cause it? No.
Did he produce the conditions that caused it? No.
Does he regret that it happened? Yes.
Do you regret that it happened? Do you regret that the USA has not gone into Somalia or Zimbabwe? Do you regret the lack of action in the Sudan? Do you believe that Bush should be vilified for his non-action in these incidents?
Or are you just creating a rather large straw man to draw attention away from the deaths in Iraq?

Plenty of folks disagree with Bush's clearly stated motivations, but with the fantasy that it is possible to do so without offering a clear alternative vision of their own.

"While threats are gathering" is admittedly not the same thing as a "T-30 seconds imminent threat." His thesis has been that inneffectual 'containment' and incredibly playing both sides (ie, covertly plotting to overthrow Saddam ever since 1991 while overtly do supporting a negotiated UN diplomatic nothing solution) and the art of straining to do nothing effective while merely appearing to do everything possible('ie, 'we've' sent in the blue berets') did not prevent Saddam from invading Kuwait the first time, did not prevent the first WTC bombing in 1993, did not prevent the embassy bombings, did not prevent a humanitarian mission in Somalia from being turned into a resounding disaster, did not prevent 800,000 Rwandans from being massacred, did not prevent the Cole attack, did not prevent Saddam from rolling up on the last of the Kurdish armies in 1996 while we watched from our $30M fighter jets in their gesture politics 'No Fly Zones", did not prevent the 2001 WTC and Pentagon bombings,...

...and was not going to prevent the next attack in a long openly declared war against the Great Satan United States of America that fully half of America is turning itself inside out trying to deny has long been hot.

What is the great alternative vision to Bush's doctrine?

Well, maybe if we lay down. the bad men will go away. Well, maybe if we just spread our cheeks and plead for peace, folks like the 5 pajama clad hooded jackasses will suddenly be overcome with remorse. Well maybe if we just ignore it, it will all go away. Well, maybe if we did something a little less difficult, a little less painful, a little less noisy--like, the heady days back around the crab spread at those great caring Renaissance Weekend events, then the folks who are now pressing their politics by suicide car bombings in lieu of elections and being cheered on by CNN et al. will once again restore their peace and order in Iraq, and we can all go back to pretending that we didn't hear that knock on our door on 9/11. Look, it's not as if it would be either the first or second or third time that the US has sold out the Iraqi people and turned them over to tyrants. They are used to our lack of spine, our weaselness, out lack of will in the face of badasses. And hey, maybe they won't call us after we make such a great show of our do-ableness?


No, that's not the vision. No, instead, it's some mythical appeal to a 'world community' out there somewhere, like the Europeans, who chafe at US intervention in what's wroing with Oil for Palaces bidness as usual Iraq, yet who accept without comment US troops to this day in Kosovo and Bosnia helping Europe wipe it's own ****ty little ass for it. This same 'world community' that, along with I am ashamed to say an America that for decades went along with this collective 'It's too expensive and costly and noisy to shout down thugs and tyrants, so let's just contain the mayhem to inside the homes of people we don't know too well.' We'll set-up long lines of coffee tables and hand out donuts and blankets and bandaids to victim and victimizer alike, because that is in the great cause of humanity and doesn't require any of us to lift our averted eyes, now cowering at the ground, point them at the mayhem, and commit the only remaining sin in the world, the sin of passing judgment; the sin of choosing, right from wrong."

Because doing so spoils the party. Because doing so puts a helluva crimp in the ability to quoff great heaping cauldrons of caring capuccino every morning, here in Disneyland. Goddamn Bush, why couldn't he have left well enough (for us) alone? We're a big country, we can afford to take a few hits with **** bombs, especially when we repeatedly demonstrate that there is absolutely no downside for anyone in the world when those shots are taken. Maybe NYC. Maybe San Francisco. Maybe LA. Maybe Seattle. I seriously doubt these guys are going to go to all the trouble of launching a **** fight across the ocean to take out Balls Mills, PA. Hey, we can take it, we're a big country, and in the aftermath, Wal_Mart will sell more plastic US flags and the government will award some construction contracts and the MTV Awards will be rescheduled to Miami, world without end.

Bush's real offense has been his pressing demand to make people choose. The nerve of that bastard.

The lessons of Somalia and Rwanda , and the subsequent turmoil, could not be clearer:

The less we do it, the more we will have to do it.

The more we do it, the less we will have to do it.

The entire Do Nothing At All Costs world--including the US at this point, is shamefully putting off the Sudan so far, and the Bush administration is dangerously saying the exact same nonsense that the Clinton administration said about Rwanda.

The gov't of Sudan is systematically encouraging genocide, Arab muslims against black muslims, and the entire world is looking for an excuse to do nothing about it.

Again. Except for the African Union, made up by the folks who witnessed the world's abject cowardice in Rwanda, like the Ghanan and Senagelese UN commanders, who realize, like the Israelis, that they've got to defend themselves, because the vaunted world community will not lift a finger in the name of justice, and at most, will show up with bandaids and coffee and donuts for thug and victim alike to put on a great show of 'doing something,' because nobody can look themselves in the face after so obviously 'doing nothing.'

The Bush admin is on the cusp of deciding to give full aid and backing to the AU, as it should. You got to ask youself, if the UN was still afunctioning worlkd authority, then where did the AU come from? It came from the shame and cowardice of Rwanda.

I hope that instead we're not going to just hang here and put on great pouty celebrations for the last of The Greatest Generation, who must be shaking their heads in disgust.

We're ignoring WWIII. It's already here. Not sure what it is going to take to realize that. We need to be a little less 'nuanced' about recognizing right from wrong, and the long term costs of continuing to let the world go up in flames.

We can't go back to using the UN as a giant fig leaf excuse to do nothing. That is exactly why the Iraq/UN model had to be broken, once and for all.

Iraq is a start, but we(the world/international community)have dug ourselves into a deep, deep hole, and only a few have stopped digging for the moment.

 

[Zlex]

Clinton never lied about Rwanda and I challege you to find a credible link that indicates that he did.

1] We/USA gave explicit cover to Belgium to cut and run.
2] In response to what we/USA knew was going on in Rwanda, we rushed to the UN to lobby only for an immediate pullout of all UN Peacekeeping forces from Rwanda; Belgium was eternally grateful for the face saving cover. See? The world's only remaining Superpower is screaming, "Cut and Run!" so how can tiny Belgium be expected to provide backbone for UN troops in Rwanda?
3] At the highest levels of our government, the only debate was about what form this pullout should take; should it be a complete pullout, or a 90% pullout? Should we maintain some token force at the borders to 'contain' the violence. Where should any temporay froce be deployed to assist in pulling US citizens out of Rwanda. There was not one single voice of dissent in the highest levels of the US Administration suggesting that maybe the thing to do is to ackowledge that this is in fact a genocide and that the right thing to do was enforce the written UN mission, codified in 1947, and summed up as "never again." It is a complete, unanimous, full force "cut and run" in the face of teenagers with machetes hacking people to death because they were Tutsi, and because their Huto controlled government was on the radio instructing them to do that.
4] In response to a suggestion that we use our defense technology to jam the government KKK/hate broadcasts, broadcasts that were providing specific mission statements such as 'go to such and such an address and kill the so-an-so family, they are part Tutsi', a Pentagon lawyer objected that this would be in violation of freedom of speech and international broadcast law, and besides, it would have cost the US about $8000/day to operate the equipment.
5] When we were finally shamed by al the world attention and focus and undeniable fact that a genocide was indeed raging in Rwanda and the world was doing nothing, our only response was to offer up an internal 3 month debate about the use of 50 APCs for the Ghanian troops, who is going to pay for transportaion and training, etc.. That's it.

Of course, this was all back when the UN loved the Clinton Administration. This was all back when the Europeans and the UN and the US Administration were all in one giant lockstep love affair. If I'm not mistaken, the Four Seasons used to have a Friday special, "Faux Realpolitick Roast Beef" made from soy.

Hey, we've got an efficient operation going on with this "Oil for Food" program. Saddam, Russia, France, and the UN/Kofi's son have got things well in control, what is all this nonsense about intervention in Iraq? Never mind, US troops are still in Bosnia and Kosovo, wiping Europe's ass for it...again, again.


It's not that hard to know what is best--what is right.

1] It's right that folks freely elect their leaders. It is wrong to do no more than snicker at 'elections' where 99.9999% of the vote goes to Saddam Hussein.

2] It's wrong that Shiite clerics murder rival Shiite Clerics. It's right that they be brouight to justice, even if that requires the use of force to enforce Iraqi judges rulings.

3] It's wrong that civilians are taken hostage and threated with being burned alive. It's right to stand up to thugs like that, with force if necessary.

4] It's wrong that mobs resort to vigilante armed militia in the context of a peaceful political process. It's right to face down megapolitics with brute force if necessary, to allow people to choose their leadership peacefully.

5] It's right to back the folks seeking a peaceful, orderly Iraq. It's wrong to back the thugs.

6] It's right to help Iraqis rebuild their country. It's wrong to sabotage that effort at every turn.

7] It's wrong to run a country by deliberately exercising a campaign of terror and fear, including torture, rape, and murder. It's right to face down such thuggery.

8] It's wrong to skim humanitarian Oil for Food programs, and to ride out UN and world sanctions by passing on every hardship to your people in thrall, while living in unimaginable palaces and squirreling away billions worldwide. It's right to break that strangelhold.

9] It's right to support moderate Shiite clerics who would condemn the actions of radical murdering Shiite clerics. It's wrong to support murdering radical Shiite clerics.

10] It's wrong to raise your children to hate and aspire to murder and martyrdom with fantastic tales of virgins in heaven; it is NOT just an alternative flavor of religion that does such things, to be respected, no more than the KKK is just an alternative flavor of Christianity. It is right to face down the KKK in whatever flavor it crops up, anywhere.

11] In Iraq, it is right to use force to defend the opressed from megapolitical thugs. It's right to not cut and run this time. It's right to leave only when a free Iraqi people tell us to leave.

12] It's wrong to use as an excuse, "We've acted poorly in the past" as an excuse to continue to act poorly. It's right to recognize and correct our actions, and demand that of our leaders.

13] It's wrong to use as an excuse "We can't fix every wrong" as an excuse to endlessly fix none. It's right to pick our actions, and when we do, to act credibly, reducing our need in the future to leave our shores to project credible force to fix other wrongs in other places. If nobody on this Earth filfills the role of crdible force from over the horizon, then every corner of the Earth will eventually be run by thugs, and the Earth will be up in flames. We could no more run the smallest community on Earth this way, it is no way to run the world community.

I don't think there is or was a solution to either Iraq or the ME problems in general that did not involve violence of some type. Why? Because, prima facie, the place is already in flames, Iraq was in thrall to a brutal Stalinist dictatorship. There was no Magic Bullet solution that was going to suddenly have everybody singing Kumbaya.

Further, in the realm of whatever violent solutions there might have been, there is no way of telling if we've chosen 'the' solution that involves the abslolute least amount of violence in either the short run or long run. In fact, given the track record of the human race, I'd pretty much be shocked to find out that we had faollowed the optimuim, perfect path to Nirvana. But, moot, and I'm not going to waste a lot of time angsting over the unknowable by anybody truth of that.

Instead, it is enough to keep in mind what is right, and what is wrong. If you are really going to be ringing doorbells for me, make sure you keep the list straight in your head.

Oh, forget the list; it's not as hard as some would make us believe. We all know it right away, we just sometimes find all kind of reasons to finesse it. Not black and white becomes grey becomes black is white, and before you know it, we are making a moral equivalence between gov't forces sedning out gangs of teenagers with machetes hacking unarmed folks to death in churches with folks arming themselves to defend against same. 'Folks killing folks, that's all we know, it's a "dual-genocide," we can't figure out Hutu is Hutu, let 'em rip.'

No, no, demonstrably, No. We knew who was killing who, how, and why. We knew that if we admittied knowing this, we would be held liable to go stop it, and the poll numbers just did not look good for that, so ... black is white.

Never again? Neville again. How about, again and again?

 

[Skyhunter]

1] We/USA gave explicit cover to Belgium to cut and run.
2] In response to what we/USA knew was going on in Rwanda, we rushed to the UN to lobby only for an immediate pullout of all UN Peacekeeping forces from Rwanda; Belgium was eternally grateful for the face saving cover. See? The world's only remaining Superpower is screaming, "Cut and Run!" so how can tiny Belgium be expected to provide backbone for UN troops in Rwanda?
3] At the highest levels of our government, the only debate was about what form this pullout should take; should it be a complete pullout, or a 90% pullout? Should we maintain some token force at the borders to 'contain' the violence. Where should any temporay froce be deployed to assist in pulling US citizens out of Rwanda. There was not one single voice of dissent in the highest levels of the US Administration suggesting that maybe the thing to do is to ackowledge that this is in fact a genocide and that the right thing to do was enforce the written UN mission, codified in 1947, and summed up as "never again." It is a complete, unanimous, full force "cut and run" in the face of teenagers with machetes hacking people to death because they were Tutsi, and because their Huto controlled government was on the radio instructing them to do that.
4] In response to a suggestion that we use our defense technology to jam the government KKK/hate broadcasts, broadcasts that were providing specific mission statements such as 'go to such and such an address and kill the so-an-so family, they are part Tutsi', a Pentagon lawyer objected that this would be in violation of freedom of speech and international broadcast law, and besides, it would have cost the US about $8000/day to operate the equipment.
5] When we were finally shamed by al the world attention and focus and undeniable fact that a genocide was indeed raging in Rwanda and the world was doing nothing, our only response was to offer up an internal 3 month debate about the use of 50 APCs for the Ghanian troops, who is going to pay for transportaion and training, etc.. That's it.
Of course, this was all back when the UN loved the Clinton Administration. This was all back when the Europeans and the UN and the US Administration were all in one giant lockstep love affair. If I'm not mistaken, the Four Seasons used to have a Friday special, "Faux Realpolitick Roast Beef" made from soy.
Hey, we've got an efficient operation going on with this "Oil for Food" program. Saddam, Russia, France, and the UN/Kofi's son have got things well in control, what is all this nonsense about intervention in Iraq? Never mind, US troops are still in Bosnia and Kosovo, wiping Europe's ass for it...again, again.
It's not that hard to know what is best--what is right.
1] It's right that folks freely elect their leaders. It is wrong to do no more than snicker at 'elections' where 99.9999% of the vote goes to Saddam Hussein.
2] It's wrong that Shiite clerics murder rival Shiite Clerics. It's right that they be brouight to justice, even if that requires the use of force to enforce Iraqi judges rulings.
3] It's wrong that civilians are taken hostage and threated with being burned alive. It's right to stand up to thugs like that, with force if necessary.
4] It's wrong that mobs resort to vigilante armed militia in the context of a peaceful political process. It's right to face down megapolitics with brute force if necessary, to allow people to choose their leadership peacefully.
5] It's right to back the folks seeking a peaceful, orderly Iraq. It's wrong to back the thugs.
6] It's right to help Iraqis rebuild their country. It's wrong to sabotage that effort at every turn.
7] It's wrong to run a country by deliberately exercising a campaign of terror and fear, including torture, rape, and murder. It's right to face down such thuggery.
8] It's wrong to skim humanitarian Oil for Food programs, and to ride out UN and world sanctions by passing on every hardship to your people in thrall, while living in unimaginable palaces and squirreling away billions worldwide. It's right to break that strangelhold.
9] It's right to support moderate Shiite clerics who would condemn the actions of radical murdering Shiite clerics. It's wrong to support murdering radical Shiite clerics.
10] It's wrong to raise your children to hate and aspire to murder and martyrdom with fantastic tales of virgins in heaven; it is NOT just an alternative flavor of religion that does such things, to be respected, no more than the KKK is just an alternative flavor of Christianity. It is right to face down the KKK in whatever flavor it crops up, anywhere.
11] In Iraq, it is right to use force to defend the opressed from megapolitical thugs. It's right to not cut and run this time. It's right to leave only when a free Iraqi people tell us to leave.
12] It's wrong to use as an excuse, "We've acted poorly in the past" as an excuse to continue to act poorly. It's right to recognize and correct our actions, and demand that of our leaders.
13] It's wrong to use as an excuse "We can't fix every wrong" as an excuse to endlessly fix none. It's right to pick our actions, and when we do, to act credibly, reducing our need in the future to leave our shores to project credible force to fix other wrongs in other places. If nobody on this Earth filfills the role of crdible force from over the horizon, then every corner of the Earth will eventually be run by thugs, and the Earth will be up in flames. We could no more run the smallest community on Earth this way, it is no way to run the world community.
I don't think there is or was a solution to either Iraq or the ME problems in general that did not involve violence of some type. Why? Because, prima facie, the place is already in flames, Iraq was in thrall to a brutal Stalinist dictatorship. There was no Magic Bullet solution that was going to suddenly have everybody singing Kumbaya.
Further, in the realm of whatever violent solutions there might have been, there is no way of telling if we've chosen 'the' solution that involves the abslolute least amount of violence in either the short run or long run. In fact, given the track record of the human race, I'd pretty much be shocked to find out that we had faollowed the optimuim, perfect path to Nirvana. But, moot, and I'm not going to waste a lot of time angsting over the unknowable by anybody truth of that.
Instead, it is enough to keep in mind what is right, and what is wrong. If you are really going to be ringing doorbells for me, make sure you keep the list straight in your head.
Oh, forget the list; it's not as hard as some would make us believe. We all know it right away, we just sometimes find all kind of reasons to finesse it. Not black and white becomes grey becomes black is white, and before you know it, we are making a moral equivalence between gov't forces sedning out gangs of teenagers with machetes hacking unarmed folks to death in churches with folks arming themselves to defend against same. 'Folks killing folks, that's all we know, it's a "dual-genocide," we can't figure out Hutu is Hutu, let 'em rip.'
No, no, demonstrably, No. We knew who was killing who, how, and why. We knew that if we admittied knowing this, we would be held liable to go stop it, and the poll numbers just did not look good for that, so ... black is white.
Never again? Neville again. How about, again and again?

Nicely written op-eds. Utter BS and totally unsourced.

Are you a professional pundit?

 

[The Smoking Man]

Plenty of folks disagree with Bush's clearly stated motivations, but with the fantasy that it is possible to do so without offering a clear alternative vision of their own.
"While threats are gathering" is admittedly not the same thing as a "T-30 seconds imminent threat." His thesis has been that inneffectual 'containment' and incredibly playing both sides (ie, covertly plotting to overthrow Saddam ever since 1991 while overtly do supporting a negotiated UN diplomatic nothing solution) and the art of straining to do nothing effective while merely appearing to do everything possible('ie, 'we've' sent in the blue berets') did not prevent Saddam from invading Kuwait the first time, did not prevent the first WTC bombing in 1993, did not prevent the embassy bombings, did not prevent a humanitarian mission in Somalia from being turned into a resounding disaster, did not prevent 800,000 Rwandans from being massacred, did not prevent the Cole attack, did not prevent Saddam from rolling up on the last of the Kurdish armies in 1996 while we watched from our $30M fighter jets in their gesture politics 'No Fly Zones", did not prevent the 2001 WTC and Pentagon bombings,...Yadda ... Yadda ... Yadda

What are you, running for office?

Personally, I go for number of posts not a word count myself.

Now, once we cut through the rhetoric ...

Has US involvement in Iraq stopped terrorism?

Come to think of it, was any of Iraq about terrorism?

You listed a laundry list of terrorist acts including the 'Cole' and the 'WTC' and have failed to link any of it to why you are in Iraq.

So you're saying that 'because you had jets flying in a 'no fly zone' around the geographic area we know as Iraq, the 2001 WTC and Pentagon Bombings (??!? did you see what happened ... There were no bombs) happened and we had to do something and so we invaded Iraq'.

Dude, when you get frustrated, why don't you just punch the wall like everyone else.

When you're frustrated at home and your wife pi$$es you off, you don't just punch the first stranger that 'cuts you off on the highway'. That doesn't make you a world leader, that makes you a subject of a C.O.P.S. episode.

Naaah. What you just did was get a couple of buildings torched in NYC, went after the culprit, lost interest and arrested a guy for crimes he committed two weeks before he shook hands with Rumsfeld.

Your whole post consists of 'We were frustrated and needed to do something ... Anything ... so we kicked the neigbour's dog and we killed the neigbour to get to it'

 

[The Smoking Man]

1] We/USA gave explicit cover to Belgium to cut and run.
2] In response to what we/USA knew was going on in Rwanda, we rushed to the UN to lobby only for an immediate pullout of all UN Peacekeeping forces from Rwanda; Belgium was eternally grateful for the face saving cover. See? The world's only remaining Superpower is screaming, "Cut and Run!" so how can tiny Belgium be expected to provide backbone for UN troops in Rwanda?
3] ...

Ummm ... Zlex!?

You quoted one line from a poster and cut n' pasted a totally irrelevant article that you seem to have in text files.

I mean, it seems highly unlikely you are churning out 1,000 word essays every couple of minutes.

You're not just trolling here ... you are a parody of a troll.

 

[edward]

ZLEX

Good god, you try to make it sould like some of us feel sorry for Saddam. NOT SO pal. A single bullet would have and should have taken Saddam out of the picture.

Don't hand us the long diatribe about why you think the Bush administration did what it did and when. We have heard it over and over again. Iraq is about OIL always was been and always will be.

If the only natural resource in Iraq was broccoli, do you really think we would have invaded?

 

[edward]

Ummm ... Zlex!?
You're not just trolling here ... you are a parody of a troll.

A parody of a spin troll .

 

[Zlex]

I am not one to lie, I read books not the in-ter-net. But if folks dont' believe me, I quickly googled.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/rwanda/story/0,14451,1183889,00.html

President Bill Clinton's administration knew Rwanda was being engulfed by genocide in April 1994 but buried the information to justify its inaction, according to classified documents made available for the first time.

Senior officials privately used the word genocide within 16 days of the start of the killings, but chose not to do so publicly because the president had already decided not to intervene.

However, the administration did not publicly use the word genocide until May 25 and even then diluted its impact by saying "acts of genocide".

Ms Des Forges said: "They feared this word would generate public opinion which would demand some sort of action and they didn't want to act. It was a very pragmatic determination."

The administration did not want to repeat the fiasco of US intervention in Somalia

Feel free to check out:

Bob Kerrey
David Rieff's "A Bed for The Nightumanitarianism in Crisis."
Samantha Powers 'Problems from Hell'
PBS's "Ghosts of Rwanda"

 

[Zlex]

ZLEX
Good god, you try to make it sould like some of us feel sorry for Saddam. NOT SO pal. A single bullet would have and should have taken Saddam out of the picture.
Don't hand us the long diatribe about why you think the Bush administration did what it did and when. We have heard it over and over again. Iraq is about OIL always was been and always will be.
If the only natural resource in Iraq was broccoli, do you really think we would have invaded?

Nobody is crying for poor old Saddam Hussein...the man who was deposed based on a war started by LIES, LIES, LIES, for no reason whatsoever.

So, as you say and I agree, if the first part is true(nobody is crying for poor old Saddam Hussein), then the second part is either not true, or it is evidence, along with the first part, of a contradiction by those who yet claim to believe the latter. At the very least, of some severe character flaw. How could any such hypothetical person believe that the poor man was deposed based on lies, lies, lies/for o good reason whatsoever, and yet cry not one utterence for justice for the poor man?

Look, if "cry all you want" is "not at all, not even the slightest bit"--then, good for you! I'm just pointing out the contradiction implied by, if that amount is "not at all, not even a little bit", of yet clinging to the latter "no reason whatsoever/lies lies lies" nonsense.

Aka, the premise of this and thousands of other bumper stucker threads just like this.

Not that you would do such a speciouis, insincere, and illogical thing. Of course not; who in their right mind would?


Oh, look, here is how its attempted. They say, "Well, he was a bad, bad man, but that was not sufficient reason to wage war, still, we're glad he's gone."


As if that was the slightest bit different. "He was a bad, bad man, but not bad enough to actually do anything about, such as 'We'll get him this time' in 1998.

And yet, Bush 'did something,' even though such hypothetical people believe that Saddam's relative 'badness' was precisely just barely insufficient to justify the 'doing.' To which I'd have to ask again, then where is the crying for justice for this bad but not bad enough to do what was done man and his murdered sons?

Nowhere, non -existing. Certainly not you or anyone here, why , such an illogical death grip clinging to a Big Headed Puppet Parade Placard (BUSH LIED!) would be beneath anyone of reasonable intelligence.

Especially in the face of his pending trial before the world.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I am not one to lie, I read books not the in-ter-net.

Ve-ry-gud.

Pi-ty u do-n't re-ad in-ter-net.

You might then be able to carry on himan discourse rather than post a bunch of dissasociated articles without just keying in on certain words contained in other posters opinions.

For example:

Clinton never lied about Rwanda and I challege you to find a credible link that indicates that he did.

You then wrote an essay which included references to the KKK!?

Now you say 'I read books'.

Well, it certainly is nice that you have found a way to employ your two opposable thumbs at the same time. I hear Harry Potter is quite good and it tends to stray away from Neocon rhetoric.:zzz: