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

[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?