Mr. David Corn,

Good post. I have posted before that the Rwanda crime should be Bill's legacy.

It is way too sad that most people that are Bill Bashers bash for a blue dress when the foul fruit of his inaction hangs on a drooping branch of the bad fruit tree.

It is our culture or counterculture that drives that kind of misinformation.

There should be more published on this. I am very glad to see the objectivity and willingness on your part to address the issue with candor, too little of that from too many that claim to care.

I cannot help but think some of the inaction and many other ways we (the west) just ignore issues in other countries is still standing on the old foundations of racism that were formed and set here in our shameful American history.

Mixed marriage has been legal since 1967?

We need to talk more about this and other important subjects but none of the history mitigates the misadventures of Bunnypants "cowboy-cheerleader."

To talk about them in the same piece is a disservice to the responsibility that is being denied by the coward in Crawford.

The issues today belong to Bush, nothing done before him made him make the piss poor choices that have us struggling to exit from his failed hobby war. To speak of the crimes of Clinton in the same piece is intellectually dishonest.

Thanks

Kirk

yes, clinton was a bastard and all of the free world did nothing to stop the rwanda genocide... just like today with darfur. maybe in 10 years or so you will report on that.

Why do I visit here?

Why did Jesus walk among the sinners? To convert them.

It is my grand plan to convert you to a life of abstincence, temperance and a new way in politics. (OK, so maybe not the first two.)

I enjoy the automatic assumption that if you dislike Bush you must be a Clinton fan, to paraphrase Fredrick Douglas, he was and is a first rate second rate man. The sad part is that you are incorrect in my estimation; the blue dress will be his legacy, not his real shortcomings, but an act of selfishness. Still for all his flaws I suspect the reasons the Republicans hate him so much is because he was able to accomplish so much more of their agenda than they seem willing to even attempt themselves. If Clinton is and was a first rate second rate man what of their leaders.

A little follow up from the last thread:

Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

*****end of clip*****

I anybody has not read this speech, you should do so. It is so interesting to read stuff like this. A little history can offer a major insight if you have an open mind and want to expand your base of knowledge.

capt

Antoine is tripping.

One of the reasons I so detest those who point to Clinton as a major voice for the left. But, compared to the slime now occupying Washington...

It all come back to the fact that we need a new set of parties that actually represent the people of this country, dems and repugs are just two heads of the same snake, why do you think we got two SKull and Bonesmen for the same office, there are only 600 of them in the world. Hello? We need better choices and the process for selecting candidates for president are flawed and to close the debates because the two parties run the process is nuts. If we don't change this process we keep getting corporate stooges and the congress is no better.

Beware the military industrial complex! WE should have listened.

You know, I am no giant Slick Willie fan myself, but I do not see how Rwanda resembles Iraq in any way. Clinton may not have stopped the genocide, but I do not see any action he made that may have caused it. On the other hand, Bush created the Iraqi quagmire, pure and simple. We can only do so much for the world with direct military intervention. I wish we had not gone into Somalia.

Corky,

John Lennon, author of "Imagine" was tripping. Jimi Hendrix, doing the "Star Spangled Banner" at Woodstock, was tripping.

Antoine is deluded, not tripping.

Here is a copy I sent to the editor of my local newspaper last month. To my absolute amazement they actually printed it.

Under Attack

Dear Editor,

Our nation is under attack.The Bush administration has successfully altered our reality with an unprecedented onslaught of propaganda and doublespeak. It has all but silenced the opposition party and anyone who opposes its radical ideology.
The government places this ideology above and beyond the freedom and security of the American people.The United States of America is quickly coming to resemble a one party dictatorship.
The genius of this campaign lies in its size and the confusion it generates. As when confronted with a big school of fish, its impossible to focus on any single one of the numerous examples of undemocratic action.
A hearing about the abuses of the Patriot Act was shut down in midstream illegally and with impunity by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis. Accountability, it seems is nonexistent.Rep John Conyers, D-Mich., was forced to hold an important hearing on the rush to war in Iraq in a tiny room in the Capitol basement.
Now a story has emerged that offers a possibilty to expose the true nature of this government. The architect of this movement, Karl Rove himself, lies at the heart of a horrible action to destroy a man who opposed the neoconservative steamroller. This time the security of our whole country has suffered, just so the Bush White House could silence another voice of dissent. No other story could be more important.
This administration will try and cover up this story with as much smoke as it can billow. It is accepted that the nomination of John Roberts was moved up in an attempt to distract our media. More smoke and mirrors are certain to follow.

Antoine;
From what I can gather I’m not sure I’d call you kind of politics particularly new. Monarchies and oligarchies have been around for a long time. They can be quite stable (is that what you mean by conservative?) but not particularly fulfilling for everyone who isn’t at the top of the heap.

As for Rwanda, I admit ignorance. I, the historian, admit that my life was so harried at that time that I did not know it was going on. My daughter saw a documentary on the subject years later in college and told me about it. She had tears in her eyes when she did. I could not believe that a story of this magnitude went on and I was oblivious to it. This isn't about politics. It's about human dignity. It’≥ about who we decide is important.

Yes, I hate what Bush has done and what he does.

The neocons want to take my "conservative credentials" and have asked me to return my "conservative decoder ring." HA!

If I do not fawn all over Bunnypants then I am a "librul" or a "lefty" and I get a kick out of it when these young neo's spew that kind of crap.

Neoconservativism was born of neo-liberalism and they HATE that fact. Well they have no use for any facts that do not support their messianic Machiavellian machinations in search of a prince.(still looking)

Those neo's crack me up~! HA!

I would claim paleo-con but that is just as wrong. This WH is MAJOR RADICAL, nothing conservative about them.

capt

Oh he is tripping. Just not on LSD. He is tripping on RSD. Rove Spun Delusion.

Antoine,
Tell Corky you're not Jesus.

The idea that the US has a duty to stop the evils of the world is what got us in Iraq. I disagree with the idea that Clinton, as the head of the US, is in any way responsible for the genocide in Rwanda. It would have been a noble act to do something to stop it, but to lump the deaths around Clinton's neck is not appropriate. If I help my neighbor during a time of stress, great. But I do what I do and I am not responsible for my neighbors acts. I disagree with the premise of Corn's post.

What?!?! Antoine is not Jesus? I was sure that our savior had returned!

As I slink into the shadow of the lurk I leave you, my like minded friends with a simple concept:

Never post to a proven liar or practiced prevaricator.

By doing so you surrender. Your response is affirmation to the simple minded blind lemmings.

That is UNLESS you are having fun. In that case "Wack-a-troll" ! HA!

Good day all!

capt

BRAVO! Corky.
Great letter. People read those letters. I know that before my paper was "fair and balanced" I used to get letters published. People would tell me they saw my opinion. We watch the opinions in our other newspaper to gauge the shift in opinion and shift in attitude at the paper. The fact they published that letter says something

.

#17

prabahata Im with you on this one. Maybe Corn just returned from an "off the record dinner" with Karl Rove. Just look at how botched up Somalia was. We lost a lot of good men for that.

Prabhata,
I really have to plead ignorance on the subject of Rwanda. I am ashamed. I see your point but as a nation with influence, as ours is, I think we had a responsibility to stop the killing. I think we probably could have. And I think Clinton knows we probably could have. If you ask him it probably is one of his greatest regrets. I could be wrong but he does, despite what Clinton haters think, he does seem to have compassion.

Thank you Jeanne. Write more letters! I have had three published so far. It keeps me from spontaneously combusting.

Okay capt., I will stop messing with the incogneocon Jesus.

Is it hot in here again? I gotta go, I see flames...

Back later...

Corky,

So you would equate the effects of propaganda to those of a nuerological catlyst? I wouldn't even equate the effects of differing nuerological agents. But, its only friendly conversation...

The Rwandan genocide is no one's fault but Madame Habarymana's and the Interhamwe's. Clinton did not lead an assault on Rwanda. Hutu extremists did. The Holocaust was not Roosevelt's fault, either. Clinton and the entire International community were negligent. Tragically so. But Clinton neither lied about it or was responsible. Bush is responsible for all civilian deaths at the hands of coalition forces since the war in Iraq began-- but he is not responsible for insurgent violence that has killed thousands of civilians. Be a little careful when assigning responsibility for mass slaughter, please. Just because you were ignorant of Rwanda before you saw the Don Cheadle vehicle over the weekend doesn't give you the right to blabber nonsense about it now, a decade later.

I think that if we pay more attention to our situation here at home we can forget the other ones, but not let the corps take them over either, why doesn't the government revoke the corporate charter of these criminals?

I think the point of Corn's piece is more that Clinton was not honest in his assesment. To wit:

Counting lives lost is certainly not the ultimate measure, and the comparison is indeed imperfect. Clinton did not cause the tragedy in Rwanda, and Bush authored of the war in Iraq (even if there were ghostwriters). But both men relied on prevarication in each episode. I won't detail Bush's falsehoods. One can write a book on the subject, and I did. (If you need convincing by now, you shouldn't be wasting your time on this site.) But let me remind readers that during the Rwanda tragedy, the Clinton administration engaged in deadly word games. It acknowledged that "acts of genocide" were underway, but for weeks it refused to state that these the killings amounted to a genocide. Such a statement would have obligated the US government, under international law, to mount actions to thwart the massacre. And the Clinton crowd wanted none of that. David Corn

It isn't that Clinton started the Rwanda situation, he just wasn't willing to acknowledge a word which if triggered would have obligated US action.

Are we the world's police man? If so then we might restructure our forces to fulfill that mission but if not then back off and let these people sort themselves out. we better clean up our country again and get it back on track.

Although Clinton fumbled on Rwanda, he at least admitted that he was wrong. Bush never admits anything.

Let us keep in mind that the repugnants came to power in 1994, early 1995. When they came to power, a full-fledge hate wave came upon America. This hate wave will continue until America falls to her knees and begs God for forgiveness. You do not attack God's children and expect God to sit idly by.

American pride will not ask for forgiveness and the demise of America will be upon us. America will rue the day that she attacked Iraq.

Robert;
I think that's a good point. I would disagree that such an obligation would have actually changed anything. Remember this was unfolding just before the congressional election cycle, I think it unlikely that Clinton could have sent anything more than toke forces. Even doing this would have pretty much handed an even larger slice of congress to the Republicans (can you say contract on America?). So while I agree with Louis that Clinton can not be viewed as the actor to blame, I agree with you that he is being disingenuous to claim ignorance. I think it was political calculus pure and simple.

I love all you hypocrite libs whining about Rwanda. You guys are always whining about "racisim, racisim" right? And you'd prefer we not "patronize" blacks, right? Yet, as son as the Africnas start killing themselves, the Great White Father is suposed to come in and rescue them. Had we been there a year before, you liberals, and the Rwandans themselves ( having been well trained to play the race card) would have been complainin of white usurpers.

Please, enough of the guilt over Rwanda. If we have no business there now, we had no business there when the killing was going on. Either the white man has the burden of colonizing Africa, or he doesnt. Either the whote race is superior, or it is not. If it is not superior, then we had no reason to clean up the Rwandans's mess.

( And dont even start with that, "we started it with the Europeans" nonsense. Or perhaps the Indians cam justify their ills on the American conquest of 200 years ago? Or the blacks on slavery that ended 150 years ago? Or the Muslims on the invaion of Andalusia 800 years ago?)

"toke forces" and he didn't inhale?

Robert Schwartz.

Almost, but not quite:

He refused to countenance a word which would have required HIM to take action.

He was the commander in chief. He'd have to have ordered a massively complicated (logistics are hell) op in the middle of Africa. We'd have had white guys killing black Africans to keep them from killing black Africans. This was decentralized. There was no Reichsbunker to capture and turn off the switch. This was a huge number of guys who just liked to do this stuff and weren't going to stop just because the government quit telling them it was okay. We'd have been patrolling the place for months, detaining (Abu Ghraib or Gitmo, anyone) or killing any armed man. Now, since the weapon of choice was the machete, that meant there would be a lot of guys who couldn't work their farms. Or walk down the road to help a buddy. Or "carry" for protection.
Compared to Iraq, this would have been pure hell.

In the meantime, the usual suspects (how would the congressional black caucus have reacted? How are they on Darfur?) would have been all over Clinton for murder and massacre and racism.

This would not have been the kind of thing Clinton liked.

And part of his problem is that a good proportion of the current left would have been hammering him night and day.
Hell, I even know missionaries who think the US military is the font of all evil who thought US paratroopers were the only answer.
But the left and some of the right would have been howling.
Remember all those clowns who insisted that Somalia must have oil? I'm sure there'd have been editorials in the Nation about cornering the wool market (Ruanda-Burundi is supposed to mean Land of The Painted Sheep).
Clinton was not the man for this job.

What did Clinton lie about exactly? The title you chose for this means you're obviously comparing him to Bush and the differences are too many to even attempt to list. Also, Clinton said that is his biggest regret as President when asked. Don't let your anger over what happened in Rwanda blind you to the facts. That's what happens all too often in this world.

I wish that Mr. Corn would write an article about Darfur and Bush's inactions. Let us not forget Niger and Bush's inactions. Bush's inactions in several African countries should also be noted. In fact I want to blame Bush for all of America's problems and all of our planet's problems. Bush is the problem. He is too much of a psycho and disengaged to to be a leader.

John,

Bill Clinton was, and still is, very much a political animal. I have little doubt that most of what he did was political calculus. Remember the term "triangulation"?

If your intent is Hillary-bashing, it would be more useful to focus on her and not on her husband's perceived failings. I have no idea if Bill Clinton could have done much to stop the genocide in Rwanda, but I do know that he is not averse to admitting his shortcomings (unlike the current resident of the WH).

Perhaps the Clinton Global Initiative is Bill's way of trying to make amends for not doing enough in Africa while he was president? He is serious about AIDS relief. Thousands upon thousands more people are getting anti-retroviral medicine because of his organization.

While on his 6-nation African trip, in Rwanda, he visited a Rwandan genocide memorial, and expressed regret for what he says was his "personal failure" to try to prevent the slaughter in 1994. When asked if part of his agenda for helping Rwanda battle pediatric HIV and AIDS was to right some wrongs during his presidency, he said, "I am not doing this as an atonement. I am doing this because it is what I think I should be doing. I think I should be helping as a private citizen to solve the problems of the world as I can solve in my private capacity."

Someone actually said to me recently, "Clinton's sex life was none of our business". She actually fell for that little rewrite of history! I had to remind her that the sex itself wasn't the problem. Jeesh if I had sex (of any kind) in my office during work hours, I'd be fired. Shouldn't the president be held to a higher standard? Worst of all, is that this "supporter of womens rights" lied over and over making all the women involved, including his wife, looks like liars, fools or both. As for Rwanda, Clinton and the UN knew what was going on. If you watched that documentary then you know they were getting direct reports of the atrocities and the people were begging for our help. It is to our everlasting shame that we did nothing to help those people.

Seems the UN is the center of ignorance, forget Clinton. That democrats still remain mum about its irrelevance and corruption, but decried Bolton's appointment pretty much shows their priorities.

Has the UN been relevant since 1991? No.

To quote Ralph Peters:

"Diplomacy is dead. Countless zombies continue to populate embassy receptions or feed from the trough at the United Nations, but as an effective tool to solve the world's most important problems, diplomacy as we have known it is finished."

Rwanda was something the World ignored, not just Clinton. Protecting the vehicle of diplomacy was Clinton's fault, the dems protecting it from Bolton is downright laughable.

An grievous error of inaction vs. a greivous error of action...

Interesting...

-T

Richard,

I agree with much of what you say, although, mandating US action, and mandating specific action by the commander in chief are not mutually exclusive. One involves the other.

Logistics are most assuredly hell, I learned that in Afghanistan. I've never been to Africa.

Many in the Black Caucus are now calling for more US intervention in Darfour.

I usually agree with James Joyce - "HIstory is a nightmare from which we must awaken."

"You do not attack God's children and expect God to sit idly by."

So you are saying that the insurgents, and their ilk that WAS the Taliban, are holy in God's eyes?

Democratic Israel, newly democratic (still suffering birth pangs) Iraq are evil and of this world...

How utterly medieval of you

Clinton told his people to not use the word genocide, as that would entail an obligation to intervene

They knew damn well what was happening, the French assisted the slaughterers from Gallic pride.

All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing. Or banal men, like Slick Willy.

History is too often a recurring dream...

Good men doing nothing vs. Bad Men doing something... interesting.

-T

"Worst of all, is that this "supporter of womens rights" lied over and over making all the women involved, including his wife, looks like liars, fools or both."

WHAT????????????????????????

You may have perceived it that way, but most women did not. Speak for yourself.

Corn lied and Cornholio died.

Speaking of lying and dying...
_________

George Bush. "One dead American for every day in office".

by Mike Whitney

President Bush's latest milestone in the war on terror has been predictably
ignored in the mainstream media. Bush, who is now in the fifth year of his
presidency, has served 1727 days in office. With the death toll in Iraq
currently at 1873 servicemen, Bush can now boast that at least one American has
died for every day he's been in office; a sobering tribute to a man who wants to
be remembered "a war president".

Filling up Arlington Every Day

from ICH

But would any of you have supported military action in Rwanda? Or would that have been labelled a "misadventure" and a "quagmire" as soon as American blood was spilled in the name of freeing an oppressed people?

Rwanda didn't have a military on the scale of Iraq's, but an intervention to stop the genocide would have certainly required years of effort and probably the lives of numerous American soldiers and innocent Rwandan's caught in the crossfire (I rather doubt the Hutus would have just rolled over). Would that have been worth it to stop the genocide? If so, why weren't the Iraqis worth saving? I mean, Bush was wrong about Iraq's WMD capability (it's hard to honestly say "he lied" when Clinton, Gore, and France all botched their intelligence and thought Iraq had an extensive WMD program as well), but Saddam's acts of genocide against the Kurds were listed as a reason for going to war (maybe WMD got played up more, but I doubt the Kurds are going to quibble about that now that nerve agent isn't raining down on their families).

So basically what I'm asking is this: why was intervention in Rwanda (or Darfur today, for that matter) justified, while intervention in Iraq is not? Why would toppling Rwanda's murderous, genocidal terror regime have been a good thing, if toppling Saddam's murderous, genocidal terror regime was an unequivocable mistake? If anything, Iraq was certainly more of a threat to it's neighbor's than Rwanda ever was, so it would seem that regime change in Iraq was more essential.

I can see how one can realistically argue WTF's position, namely that we should have ignored both situations and not tried to play world police. The opposite stance is also defensible: we should have stopped the genocide in Rwanda, we should have stopped the genocide in Iraq, and we probably ought to stop all the nastiness going on in Darfur and North Korea, among other places. But it seems somewhat hypocritical for David to take a stance in the middle and say that one is right and one is wrong.

I guess the best question to pose to Mr. Corn is this: if it had been Bush in office during the Rwandan massacre, and he had sent military forces to Rwanda to force the Hutus to end the genocide, could you honestly say you would you have supported his actions? If yes, then what exactly is it you have against the Shiites and Kurds of Iraq?

Antoine, here's Arianna's old blog. You can check out Brock. I was a regular there from the beginning. I, for one, don't think you & Brock are one and the same.

http://www.ariannaonline.com/blog/index.php

Heyaah, Mr. David Corn, better up your deathcount--approx three million North Korean citizens died in the work camps and from famine during Clinton's presidency, while slick Willie tried to rework his role in history into a nobel peace prize by playing bilateral footsie with Kim Jong Il.

I only speak for myself, of course, but I'd have to be assured that what my governmental representatives were telling me was actually the truth, before I could agree to commit American lives and tax treasury to ANY intervention.

Since it has proven incabable of speaking and/or acting in an honorable fashion, my government would be hard pressed to garner my approval for any such action. Establish a truly representative government where the voices of the people and not those of the corporations who have most to profit from such worldly interventions are what counted and the likelihood of support changes significantly.

-T

Clinton should have gone into Bosnia sooner, he should have taken out Saddam after the inspectors were expelled. There are a lot of things that CLinton should have done but he was not elected on his foreign policy enlightenment and at the time the voices crying for us to get involved were few and easy to ignore.

I wonder how many will reevalute W ten years from now as they rethink Clinton.

jdymstryoda, Romeo D'allaire, the UN's soldier on the spot, said himself that as little as five thousand troops would have stopped the genocide. He pleaded for reinforcements.
Read his book.
Rwanda and Iraq are not the same a'tall.

Robert Schwartz;

Again, I call a near-miss.

Clinton could have done "something". But doing enough would have been a military op of substantial size with free and easy ROEs.

We are currently doing "something", with the USAF providing transport for AU troops and some commo and intel. This is more than Clinton did, and not enough.

In fact, Bush being Bush and the left being the left, the left is beating up on Bush for not doing anything when, in fact, he is doing something. It's not that they actually care, but it gives them an excuse. Should Bush have started doing "enough", there'd be a different set of excuses.

But, as we see, it's possible to do something short of recolonizing the place. But if that isn't what's done, then it isn't enough.

BTW. Found "Sanders of The River" by Wallace. Sort of a fictional account of a Brit keeping the peace, sort of, in Darkest Africa. Couldn't write that today (pub. 1930) But, in those days it worked. Can't even say that today. I found it in an antique shop and discovered that it's available at Amazon. I could triple my money.

The difference between liberals and so-called conservatives is that liberals demand honesty from even out own, while conservatives circle the wagons and tell lie over overlapping lie to gain political advantage. Alos did you mean that Congress wants to reduce Medicaid?

In ten years...when "The Pet Goat" is the only Book in the GWB presidential library and the legacy of "Choked on Preztel, fell off bike and run over by a Segway during the last week in office" is the HIGHLIGHT of the "memories" film...

-T

uhhh.. yugoslavia?

My favorite criticism of Bush? That he squandered the international support he had after 9/11. Which begs the question: When was the last time the world took action? (I will never trust the democratic party to handle foreign policy. Individuals yes, but the party,no.)

What happened to the UN after Gulf War I?

Watch the National Geographic shows on 9/11. Gives a whole new meaning to failure to act. We were absolutely adrift in foreign policy for 8 years.

Clinton may have been a friend to the world, but he was no leader of it. Please blame Bush for everything wrong with the world, at least we can agree that he is reponsible. I won't make that mistake about Clinton. Even hillary would have been better.

I'm confused. Mr. Corn seems to be saying that the U.S. had a moral obligation to do something effective to stop the Rwanda genocide. Yet he criticizes President Bush strongly for the Iraq war. In both cases, an innocent civilian population was suffering horribly and many, many people were being murdered. How does Mr. Corn distinguish the two? Is it that Mr. Bush didn't get U.N. agreement before going in? If so, would he have expected Mr. Clinton to wait to take action until U.N. agreement was reached? What if the U.N. had never agreed? Or, does Mr. Corn condemn Mr. Bush for making WMD the main reason for entering Iraq rather than the human rights violations? If so, what is more important - that people are freed from tyranny and murder, or that the "right" reasons for a military intervention are made?

I don't see how you can condemn Clinton for not acting, and condemn Bush for acting, when in both cases the lives and freedom of a people were at stake. You'd have to argue that Saddam wasn't bad enough to warrant action while the Hutus were. And that would seem like a curious distinction for a liberal to make -- just how many thousands have to be murdered, and how fast, before a Republican presdident's military intervention is acceptable? After all, hadn't Saddam murdered more people in his reign than the Hutus did? Does it mean that if a tyrant murders at a slow enough pace, then liberals don't care? Or does it mean that rescuing people is only acceptable if the hallowed liberal institutions (like the UN) give their stamp of approval first? Or do liberals like Mr. Corn only want to see people freed if a liberal President does it?

I do not count myself as an expert on African affairs, but on the whole:

Much of the violence on the continent today can be traced to the direct effects of colonialization, such as when the Dutch played one tribe off another in Leopold's personal fiefdom, the Congo. The notion that re-colonizing the place would be preferable is laughable.

History is a nightmare, as I noted.

One is reminded of Ghandi's comment on English Civilization...

One is also reminded of the British forcing the Kurds, Shia and Sunnis into a made up country called Iraq...

The War Party Unhinged

The Iraqi Constitution is a prelude to the New American Constitution that bush plans to unleash on Americans

IMHO, in cases like this presidents can't win. If a lot of people are being murdered, you can either take direct action or no. If you do take direct action, then people will criticize you. Like Bush and Iraq. Sure, you may say that Saddam was a great guy and good to the people, but the large number of mass graves and his documented support of terrorists says otherwise. If you don't, then people will criticize you. Like in this case. Invading (or sending troops in) to Rwanda would have the same basic results as Iraq did - every Jihadi in the area would stream in to fight. Except back then, I don't think we were as well prepared.

(first timer) Great title, reasonable post. The USA has signed up for, in the case of genocide, DOING SOMETHING. Does the signature of whoever signs in the name of the USA mean something or not? If genocide, THEN action. If not genocide, then non-action is OK. This is the current logic in Sudan, a slo-mo genocide. (Bush should ask for a declaration of war.) um, I guess I'm one of those neo-cons perhaps not welcome here. I believe world peace is a good goal, and even achievable in my lifetime -- in a World Without Dictators. Of course, all the criticism of Bush for being imperfect sort of justifies Clinton NOT doing anything -- and for many, that is the purpose of the criticism. To make sure "good" America does nothing, even if that allows evil to triumph. Most prolly think it was good for the US to leave Vietnam. I wonder how many hundreds of thousands of non-combatant civilians would have had to be murdered before an anti-war protester thinks post-war genocide was worse than 15 more years of fighting? (1974 - 1989)

Savage Conservative Warmongers

Those who support the Iraq war should enlist and go to Iraq.

Hajji-

judging by your work, you are obsessed about Bush and where he has gone wrong, but like every bleating democrat these days, you can state no alternative.

Lebanon would be better in Syria's hands. Russia should have been allowed to 'annex' the Ukraine. Iraq would be a paradise, once Saddam died and Udai and Qusai got the keys to the realm. Lybia would be better able to defend itself with nukes.

You have no plan...that was the problem with Al-Queda in the 90's. Fear of action, a fear most of the world shares, means taking no action and finding justification in it. (Clinton knew about Bin Laden, but feared snatching him would cause massive terrorist counterstrikes. They decided not to address the Taliban precisely because they knew they couldn't declare it a victory...

A soldier a day? Where does that put Lincoln, FDR, Washington? I realize you must be incapable of evalauting anything but thru deaths. Go protest alcohol...you may save more lives.

State an alternative...please, at least there would be some debate. Go find a political party that agrees with you and can represent you-maybe you need to visit Stormfront(a neo-nazi democratic organization) which shares your views about taking actions in foreign Countries.

Find a hill, dig a hole and go live in it. Pray that no one bothers you.

For all of the people that Clinton should have "done something" about Rwanda, or that Bush should "do something" about Darfur, occasionally it would be nice if someone actually articulated what that "something" ought to be (or have been). People who are hell-bent on massacring one another will not be stopped by diplomatic initiatives or harsh words. At the very least it takes a sustained bombing campaign, but more often it requires boots on the ground. In the case of Rwanda it would have taken at least tens of thousands boots on the ground. That means thousands of troops who are trained and ordered to kill or dropping bombs that will necessarily kill a lot more people than just the bad guys. It could very well be the case that the devil's arithmetic would say that using military force would have resulted in lives saved. I don't know. But it seems like the height of hypocricy to condemn Clinton for not doing anything in Rwanda, and at the same time deem the Bush administration criminal for having "done something" when it came to Saddam Hussein.

Gerald,
I completely agree with you. Everyday citizens have no right in the actions of the military. Those who protest the War have as much validity as those who favor it.

I promise not to express my views if you promise not to express yours. Furthermore, no President should every be elected without having served in the military.

What a democratic country that would be...

MarkJ, I think it is imperative to remember that under international law, UN member countries are required to do something about genocide. And you know, David pointed that out in his article. And the people of Iraq are going to be a lot less free once the Islamic law written into the constitution takes effect. Then you can talk about the great emancipator that is Bush. Setting up a Theocracy was our goal in Iraq, that'll be the talking point for the 2006 elections. ~A!

Look, Liberals ought to drop the phony moralizing and admit what they are: neo-Isolationists on a par with Pitchfork Pat Buchanon. Rwanda and Darfur and Iraq and Afghanistan are far-away places filled with people with brown and black skins that Liberals just don't care about. Everyone knows that to stop people being hacked to death by machetes you need to kill them. Running around acting self important like characters from the West Wing (Clinton's fatal flaw) won't do anything or save a single life. Clinton over and over again would not expend ANY political capital to save lives when the US had the power to do so. This was the pattern in Bosnia (where the US did not intervene until well after Srebenica and that massacre), in Haiti (where the US sailed away after a group of thugs postured on the docks at Port-Au-Prince), in Somalia (where Osama boasted that Muslims had driven the US away "shamefully" by causing only 18 casualties). At every turn Clinton was weak in foreign affairs because he just didn't care. This isolationism to be fair was part of the humbug-Hypocrisy of the Media, political classes, and both Parties during the Nineties. If anything defined both Democrats and Republicans along with the Media it was hypocrisy. Pretending to care about victims far away but not really giving one damn. [Rwanda was basically the French Mitterand Govt encouraging the massacre to gain favorable mineral concessions for Total-Elf-Fina]. Give Bush credit at least for this much: after 9/11 he realized that yes, no man nor country is an island and that oppression and evil in Afghanistan can and would (just as State predicted in the 1996 Memo opposing the US acceding to Sudan kicking bin Laden out to Afghanistan) result in murder here at home on a mass scale. Over 3,000 Americans died on 9/11 because Clinton (and Bush) allowed evil in the person and organization of bin Laden and Al Qaeda to fester unmolested in Afghanistan. US military force and foreign policy does not do "nuance" well, we either have the traditional isolationism or interventionism (to protect ourselves at home: WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Cold War, Gulf War, Afghanistan, Iraq). If you are really concerned about people in Rwanda or Darfur you'll have to support interventionism because ONLY the US has the capacity to stop the killing. Bosnia and Kosovo showed NATO's utter uselessness, Rwanda and Cambodia and Congo and most of West Africa the UN's total failure. Kofi Annan famously ordered Canadian UN Peacekeeper Gen Dallaire (a good man haunted by the genocide, attempted suicide) to "stand down to preserve the UN's neutrality." Dallaire and his tiny band of soldiers were willing to fight and die to protect at least SOME people in the face of evil incarnate. While people were hacking to death infants, women, children, and the elderly, Clinton, Democrats, Republicans, and the Media shed crocodile tears. What this country needs IMHO is a real old-time FDR Democratic Party, purged of useless and hypocritical neo-isolationist Liberals who can rally the country for true mobilization and much bigger military (Clinton cut the military by more than 40%, remember the "Peace Dividend?") to address things like Rwanda, Darfur, and other places before the situation escalates out of control, millions die and the stage gets set for evil to metastisize and use the graveyard as a staging area to attack the Continental United States. Bush does not see this but at least he will fight somewhere, and however ineptly move to get rid of evil in some places, which is better than craven Clintonism (Dick Morris derived poll-watching). Neo-isolationism in the world of jet travel, the internet, global trade, and satellite TV is not realistic or sensible. Democrats ala FDR's Good Neighbor policy used to know this, too bad PC multi-culti moral relativism has changed them into humbug-filled hypocrites of the highest order (even Pat Robertson doesn't reach the humbug level of Democrats).

Saddam got action. Don't you remember GW1? The objections to bush's war is not that nothing should be done, but that Bush 1 did enough, and had good reason for not doing more.
Do you have so little faith in our Armed Forces, and Bush's father?
In both cases Rwanda and Iraq, it has proven difficult to gather both of the things needed to intervene in an internal problems of another country. Sometimes you can't gather the political will, and sometimes you can't gather the right information and strategy. Rwanda- no political will. Iraq- nogood strategy.

Why the HELL are we discussing what Clinton did or did not do 10 years ago? This hand wringing is taking us off course here. I personally did not like Clinton, and yes, he should have done something about Rwanda. But what does that have to do with the Lies of George W. Bush?

Clinton did not lie about Rwanda, did he? He ignored what was going on in Rwanda, and that was very bad. But did he lie about it? This whole thread is bogus.

Who speaks for the thousands who were raped, tortured and gassed in Iraq by Saddam and his Baath party sadists? Not David Corn, or the rest of the far left. If David Corn puts the blame on Clinton for ignoring Rwanda, then how is Corn's standing then with the Iraqi people's nightmare? Indeed, when the opportunity came, when it came down to the nitty-gritty, the left fought against saving them, purely because it was a "neo-con" with nads in office. Or because "the U.N." wanted a few more commitee meetings. Or because we needed to wait for Saddam to detonate a WMD during a televised conference where he says very slowly " I... have ... W...M...D".

Has it occurred to any of you on the far left that Bush's intention to clean up his father's mess in 91' is a noble, commendable, and "liberal" thing to do?

David, lamenting your own lack of scrutiny towards Clinton's fence sitting, 10 years after the fact, doesn't absolve you from anything, but only shows that liberty and life isnt your true focus. And Im sure the Baathist party in Iraq appreciated it.

I wonder if you will be lamenting your previous positions again when Saddam's trials start, and we see again, just what a monster he was?

So Clinton "knew" because a group of advocates told him? must a president believe everything he is told...even if from the best sources?

I would argue that it is the president's responsibility to be wary of agitated advocates....both President Bush and President Clinton should have questioned intelligence on Iraq's WMD potential as the prime examples.

You leave unexamined just what the USA, or NATO or the UN
could have done in the time available.

20/20 hindsight.

Jay T.

Remember, it was the Repubs who looked on with approval as Saddam gassed the Kurds and Iranians.

It was the U.S. who put the Baathists in power in the first place. Saddam was an assasin for the CIA - getting rid of pesky communists.

Saddam's trials should be very interesting - especially if televised and he is given the right to a fair trial.

At least Talabani has stated that he will not sign a death warrent, and will resign if one is proffered.

As they once said on Laugh-In "Verry Interesting."

As much as I think Clinton was as weasily as Nixon, I don't blame him for this one.

There's NO WAY we would have backed him, especially after Somalia, where our zeal for saving Africans from themselves was met by the reality that it can't be done.

One of these centuries, decent Africans will stand up.

If the left continues its Bush-Lied-People-Died trope long enough, it's possible somebody other than Sheehanoias might come to believe it. As the inestimable Hitchens points out, "Abdul Rahman Yasin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade Center attack in 1993, subsequently sought and found refuge in Baghdad; Dr. Mahdi Obeidi, Saddam's senior physicist, was able to lead American soldiers to nuclear centrifuge parts and a blueprint for a complete centrifuge (the crown jewel of nuclear physics) buried on the orders of Qusay Hussein; Saddam's agents were in Damascus as late as February 2003, negotiating to purchase missiles off the shelf from North Korea; and Rolf Ekeus, the great Swedish socialist who founded the inspection process in Iraq after 1991, has told me for the record that he was offered a $2 million bribe in a face-to-face meeting with Tariq Aziz." Iraq was implacably advancing toward the acquisiton of a nuclear weapon and delivery system with the connivance of the UN, France, Russia and other interested and bribable parties. Yes, we could have continued to bury our heads in the sand the way we did as the Rwanda cauldron came to a boil. That certainly was an option.

John Benson,
You bring up an interesting point, believing that I favored monarchies or oligarchies. If people were infallible, those, perhaps, would be the best forms of government. The trouble is, every once and awhile, you need to throw the rascals out, and that cannot be accomplished under either of those scenarios.

If you will notice from my previous postings, I am just the opposite of what you think I am and very much for the triumph of the individual over both big government and big business. (Read Plato's recommendation of the Philosopher King state (monarchy/oligarchy) in "The Republic" and Aristotle's devastating refutation of it in "The Metaphysics".) Aristotle pretty well debunks both the monarcy and oligarchial forms of government in a totally empirical, a priori manner.

As Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the rest." Of course, what we have here in the U.S. is not a true democracy, but a representative republic.

So, do we tweak the current system or throw the baby out with the bathwater? In some ways I am in favor of a parliamentary form of government, because that is closest to a true democracy. But sometimes elected officials have to make tough decisions that might not be in the immediate best interests of their constituents. Are we to have the elected officials penalized for choosing the right thing over political expediency?

First, if I were god/king, I would elect a President to one six-year term. We are forever campaigning for the next election these days, immediately after the last election. Next I would shorten the official campaign season to a few weeks, as they do in Britain. Finally, I would adopt a partial paliamentary type of government, allowing for the call of new elections under certain circumstances.

The computer age brings us squareface with all different types of alternatives. With instant access and instant feedback, why do we need a legislative branch of government at all? As dire chance and fateful cockup would have it, we are all now able to become our own legislators.

Those are but a few quick thoughts on the matter. More later.

Boy the irony is deep around here. You're bashing Clinton for having done nothing to intervene to stop genocide and, yet, had he done so, many thousands of Rwandans surely would have died in the fighting between U.S. and Rwandan government forces. What, then, would have prevented the same charges being laid at Clinton's door as you now lay at Bush's? If you would like to see the U.S. intervene to stop governments from butchering their own people and dumping them in mass graves then you're going to have to come to grips with the reality that defeating brutal tyrannies is bloody business -- it was during WWII, it was in Kosovo, it is in Iraq, and it surely would have been in Rwanda (and the Clinton administration fully realized this--which is why it did nothing). If the left thinks fighting tyranny is nonetheless worth it, it is doing an absolutely TERRIBLE job of making that clear.

At last! an honest man . Yhank you.

Diogenes

David, the title of this thread seems odd. I agree with flan, clinton committed many crimes in his 8 years in office, but what does that have to do with the current regime? Genocide has been an ongoing problem around the world, but that is a far cry from a president who lies about everything he said regarding Iraq in order to attack and occupy a foreign country. saddam was murdering innocents, but we have taken over that position, 100,000 and counting, 55 percent of those killed have been women and children aged 12 and under, and what for? There were no WMD's, saddam and OBL were in no way connected and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. David, you have dropped the ball on this one.

....a neocon with nads in office.
oh, he's got nads alright!

"Remember, it was the Repubs who looked on with approval as Saddam gassed the Kurds and Iranians."

FDR firebombed Dresden for the Soviets. We treated them like allies and ceded Eastern Europe to him...This argument that we cannot change our policy is precisely the reason dems have no standing in foreign Policy. We cannot correct mistakes? Then what is the obssession for dems to have Bush admit his? Moral vindication? By the way Bush has liberated more people than FDR...

"There's NO WAY we would have backed him, especially after Somalia" -so basically no sense in even bringing it up to Congress. What a leader.

"Why the HELL are we discussing what Clinton did or did not do 10 years ago?"

So we stop discussion of Iraq in 2013?

I love how the spin turns to clinton when bush is on the ropes.

folks, history is a good lesson. but stay focused on who is in control of the classroom today. btw what was clinton's approval rating during said crisis as opposed to bush's current approval rating with iraq? =D

Maybe this was brought up but in my mind the difference in the way Clinton reacted to things and the way Bush does is that Clinton understood the need for a coalition. He understood the need for the world’s cooperation. Saddam may have been a bad man but I don't see why our killing of 100,000 citizens of Iraq and destroying a country is somehow protecting it.
Clinton also understood that history was happening as the country acted. Every move he made would have a reaction. Bush is totally oblivious to that fact. That is obvious from the lousy planning. I don’t think Clinton would have walked into Rwanda thinking he could make money for Halliburton either.
The posts that discuss the logistics and intricacies of planning for an intervention speak to the nightmare. What should he have done? What did he do? It’s history. One post spoke with eloquence of Clinton’s actions now concerning HIV and the medical needs of those in Rwanda and his doing it not for atonement but because it is something that needs to be done. If you guys want to bash Clinton go ahead. He wasn’t perfect by any means. But I see a man who knows he has the ability to make a difference in the world and he goes out and tries to help.

The Two Green Zones by Dahr Jamail

Slocum, fighting tyranny is one thing. I would give my own life if it came to that. But what is going on in Iraq has nothing to do with fighting tyranny. If you think so, then you need to do some more research and then come back and tell me how this war is about fighting tyranny.

And before you use the Saddam was a very bad man and he killed thousands of his own people, don't even bother. We were not told we were going to war to free an oppressed people. We were told he had WMD's and it would be better to go in now than wait for a mushroom cloud. In reality we went in because 1) Saddam tried to assinate Bush's daddy 2) Oil 3) To build permanent bases - we've got 14 of 'em in Iraq now. 4)Carpetbagging opportunities (i.e. Haliburton and KBR getting rich off of this war). Saddam being a tyrant had nothing to do with it.

And beyond that, pretending we went in for that "noble cause" of getting rid of tyranny, we went about it all the wrong way and have totally f*cked it all up. If nothting else, this administration should be impeached for ineptitude.

Slocum, fighting tyranny is one thing. I would give my own life if it came to that. But what is going on in Iraq has nothing to do with fighting tyranny. If you think so, then you need to do some more research and then come back and tell me how this war is about fighting tyranny.

And before you use the Saddam was a very bad man and he killed thousands of his own people, don't even bother. We were not told we were going to war to free an oppressed people. We were told he had WMD's and it would be better to go in now than wait for a mushroom cloud. In reality we went in because 1) Saddam tried to assinate Bush's daddy 2) Oil 3) To build permanent bases - we've got 14 of 'em in Iraq now. 4)Carpetbagging opportunities (i.e. Haliburton and KBR getting rich off of this war). Saddam being a tyrant had nothing to do with it.

And beyond that, pretending we went in for that "noble cause" of getting rid of tyranny, we went about it all the wrong way and have totally f*cked it all up. If nothting else, this administration should be impeached for ineptitude.

sorry about that - it was acting like it was still in preview and so I clicked Post -

Robert,
I read the Dahr Jamail site earlier today. It was a very good article.

Hello all,

As a new comer I feel the need to point out some of my observations over the past few weeks.

Let me say first that I am a lover, not a fighter. But I care about the world and our roles in this world. Does that qualify me as a contributer here?

It seems that the bitter bickering is as infinite here as the problems abroad that lead to horrific bloodshed.

As a great nation, I wonder if keeping and holding peace is a possibility. If this blog is a microcosm of some of the worlds struggles, it would seem that we need to work much harder at discourse that invokes appreciation for ones views rather than provocation.

In scanning the posts of the past weeks, it is dissapointing to witness the turbity of political debate elevate to this critical mass. Particularly by the right leaning individuals.

How can we as a nation lead the way to peaceful solutions when the best of us, many who chat on this blog, allow ourselves to become so debased? Our IQ seems to drop a couple of digits in the attempt to show whose side is smarter. Thus both sides of the dispute seem as dumb as dog shit. Furthermore in such a primitive mind, violence becomes a likely option.

In all truth, it appears to me that 'Antoine' and 'bartender' would smile to see 'Haji' slaughtered. To hear his daughter beg for mercy.

I can only hope that is not so, but it sure seems like it.

I have great hope for the human experiment. Thank you for the time to allow me to put my two cents in.

Here's an example of our success in Iraq. Energy Security. Miss Manners whould be mighty angry if I posted the list of attacks on pipelines and refineries listed here. Does anyone have a solution to that little problem?

weefz- "I love how the spin turns to clinton when bush is on the ropes."

on the ropes? You mean he is unelectable? 10 months ago, was he on the ropes? AP/ipsos has it 60% stay and finish, 37% want to leave? I promise you that I won't be voting for him again, but then neither will the other 60 million who voted for him.

As a phrase 'on the ropes' also implies, he is getting pummeled. Who is doing this pummeling? Surely not the Democratic Party. I noticed that the Democratic congress has a lower approval than Bush. Of course they still have a higher approval rating tham Cindy sheehan...

You have no leaders. You have nothing. You have no vision, no plan, and no clue. If you want a referendum on the War, wait until the finish the job crowd drops below 50%.

You want change? State an alternative. You can't and you will keep getting pummeled at every election that foreign policy is issue number one. You won't have a democratic senate for the next six years, you won't have a democratic president for the next 7.

If this is a pummeling, then call me a masochist. Beat away drummer boy, beat away.

Jeanne,

First - I promise not to use your name on a post when I mean to write it to you. I think I did that not once, but twice last night.

Second - great, devastating post at 91. I will now do what I hate people doing to me. I will answer your question with a question and then a comment.

Primo - Do you think the attacks would decrease if we left?

Segundo - Please note that, on an annualized basis, attacks are down 39% in 2005 from 2004, even with the terrorists becoming more fanatical. Is that perfect? No. Is it getting much better? Yes.

Would Iraq make Rwanda look like a walk in the park in comparison if we left now? I think so.

And here's the list of members who are demanding an inquiry into the Downing Street Memo's. List. I don't see a lot of Republican names on here but maybe they don't think an inquiry is necessary. Let's see, the memo suggests the president intentionally deceived congress. Hmmm.

Here are some issues.
1. secretly decided to go to war;
2. decided to deceive and mislead the Congress and the American people with false claims about both weapons of mass destruction and ties between Saddam Hussein and 9-11;
3. secretly diverted $700 million from the War in Afghanistan and started bombing Iraq to provoke a war;
4. agreed to go to the UN only to "legalize" an illegal invasion - and then walked out of the U.N. when inspections worked.

Antoine;
Perhaps choosing the tone you use when interacting with Pandemoniac is unfair, but I see a very pronounced condescending tone in those posts. You keep saying we don't propose any ideas, yet I proposed one earlier. Pandemoniac made reference to it, and I stand by that as the core of the problem.

I'm prepared be disagreed with and told I'm wrong, I'm not often treated to this minimal level of courtesy by Bush supporters. The objections are not with what I write, as far as I can tell they don't even bother to read them, or scan them with the sole intent to find some minor point to resume the shrill scream. The compulsion is to prove they can scream with more hate than the other side. Usually they win.

If you are serious in you desire to change minds here, you would be better served with discussion and less liberals are non-thinking illogical sods. It is no more true than saying all conservatives are feral savages, based on some of the outrageous things said here at times.

Jeanne,

The Downing Street Memo is to the left what the missing White House FBI files were to the right in the 1990's - the Holy Grail of wrongdoing in the administration. Don't you think the New York Times would have been all over the memo like white on rice if there had been anything to it?

You know what Antoine,
I have no idea what the answer is. I really don't. What I do know is, this war is being managed by an incompetent neocon who needs to step aside and let the big boys do the work.
I think that the days of knowing what to do are long gone. It has been called a quagmire for a reason.
I think that if real, honest, reconstruction and planning had happened we would have been in much better shape.

Note to self,
Stop posting as me.

I wrote to me - Don't you think the New York Times would have been all over the memo like white on rice if there had been anything to it?
THE NEW YORK TIMES! HA HA HA HA HA
No.

This is a very good post from David Corn. I'd like to have a go at answering some of the points people have made here...

1) Clinton didn't lie about Rwanda

Unfortunately, he did. His administration consistently played down atrocities in Rwanda. In particular, they refused to use the word genocide, when they knew that reflected what has happening, because of the legal obligations using the word would entail.

As Christine Shelley of the State Department said, squirming before journalists:

Q. "...Why can't you say that word genocide has happened?"

Shelley: "There is a reason for the selection of words we have made... There are obligations which arise with the use of that term."

Shelley was at least honest about that. But not about what they knew.

2) Rwanda's genocide was not the direct responsibility of the US government

The US was certainly not complicit in the way that the French government surely was - but other than France, the US government was in the best position of any outside government to influence international policy and to stop the genocide, but chose not to.

The UN had a small peace-keeping contingent in Rwanda at the beginning of the genocide - the Clinton administration was instrumental in withdrawing it

3) If the US had intervened in Rwanda it would have required a major military effort of the kind David Corn does not support in Iraq

No it wouldn't have. As someone pointed out, General Romeo Dallaire called for a small number of troops to supplement his UN force.

They would not have had to have been American, either - the US could have provided logistical support and transport for an African force.

4) People wanted the US to "do something" - but what was that something?

Human rights groups offered very specific recommendations, many of which required no military action at all, including:

a) Jamming the radio broadcasts that were instrumental in organising the genocide - this would have been easily possible;
b) Expelling the Rwandan government from the United Nations to send a clear message - instead it continued to sit in on debates on its own genocide;
c) US pressure on the French government to stop supporting the Hutu chauvinist government and impose an arms blockade;
d) Acknowledging that a genocide was underway and condemning it forcefully to deprive the murderers of the impression that we didn't care - instead we er... showed quite clearly that we didn't care at all.

None of these basic steps were even tried.

Likewise, there are similar steps to be taken over Darfur right now that could make a difference before considering military action. Doing something about Darfur does not mean the United States invading and occupying the Sudan - it means listening to what people pleading for help on the ground have to say and seeing what can be done.

5) Why support intervention in Rwanda but not Iraq?

There is no comparision at all between contributing to a minor intervention to stop massive ongoing atrocities and a full-scale invasion and brutal occupation of another country at a time when there was not a genocide, with a view to controlling its economic and political future in the self-interests of a foreign state.

Intervening in Iraqi Kurdistan in 1991, in Bosnia in 1995 and Sierra Leone in 2000 in a limited way during a period of huge massacres could count as humanitarian intervention. The Iraq War of the spring of 2003, and its ugly follow up from May 2003-the present, certainly does not, and will rightly be remembered in ignominy for the suffering it has caused rather than alleviated.

Human Rights Watch has written about and made a similar distinction in their own discussion of humanitarian intervention.

When discussing intervention, there are a range of different ways of intervening, some OK, some terrible, some hideous (none will be perfect). You can distinguish between them. It is not a question of being in favour of all or nothing.

6) Liberals are just isolationists who don't care about the world outside the USA

This blind bit of partisanship is clearly contradicted by the very post we are discussing, as well as plenty else.

The world's most committed human rights groups tend to be filled with liberals and left-wingers. You may wish to ask why. (My suggestion is because defending human rights consistently involves a mindset willing to challenge the powerful rather than inventing excuses for them)

Anyway, it has been a while since Bush mentioned Darfur. The post below about Uzbekistan is relevant too.

http://www.protectdarfur.org/

Right, i'm done now, hope i wasn't too boring...

John,
After four plus years of Republican dominance in all branches of government I think it begs the question...who's driving the boat?
Who's in charge?
Everything indicates that the simple answer to that is...Republicans. Conservatives.
And with full control for all this time still the best excuse you people have for why things still aren't right is...Liberals?
I thought you folks were all about the Ownership society. Well, then take ownership. Bush approval rating at an all time low, Congress approval rating down, Greenspan bursts the "property" bubble and accounts it to the massive deficits the country is running under the Bush administration, Afghanistan still a mess, Iraq an even bigger mess, Americans more deeply divided along social political lines than ever before, and gas prices soaring. Who's fault is all that...listen to Fox/Talk radio/tabloid propaghanda machine and you hear Liberals.
Take ownership, if you want to be in charge, then be in charge.
The liberals will be there when you're done.

Alex Higgins,
Too boring? No way. Thank you for your post. It was very enlightening.

John Benson,

I thought I had addressed most, if not all, the questions people had. I will read more carefully.

But remember - I'm not the one who screams obscenities. That is for children and malcontents.

I'm not the one calling people liars and frauds. That is for the flotsam and jetsam of the world.

Remember, I hate what I consider the stupidity, not whom I consider the stupid person. The posters here are all probably representative of society on the niceness scale.

I have posted on topics ranging from Iraq to health care to education to a number of different issues. Other than you and Jeanne I am met with either silence or snide commments on the serious postings.

It's hard not to be condenscedning when a valid question is met with a "Well, so's your old lady." -type response.

Please take a cue from some of the other non-liberal posters. Unless and until the bloggers here begin to formulate viable ideas rather than just baying at the moon, most Americans will not take them seriously.

There is a greatness in the American spirit, the American soul that transcends politics. We should all strive to celebrate that sensation, not our darker sides.

Don't spread this around but I do not place blame on Clinton for what occurred in Rwanda. I do not believe this country would have backed an intervention into what was essentially another country's un-civil war. If I recall correctly, I
didn't see France, Germany or the Brits lifting a finger to do anything either. What occurred there was tragic, but certainly not the fault of one man or one country. There is also proof that Clinton would not have obtained the backing to intervene there. When Clinton did intervene in Kosovo, he did it under the leadership of NATO. The U.N. wouldn't even get involved then. Here is what Noam Chompsky had to say about that action: "The removal of the brutal and corrupt regimes of Serbia and Croatia (Milosevic and Tudjman were partners in crime throughout) is an important step forward for the region, and the mass movements in Serbia -- miners, students, innumerable others -- merit great admiration, and provide an inspiring example of what united and dedicated people can achieve." But, not all of this country believed in what Clinton did even then. There were naysayers on the right and left.

Note to lovernotfighter. I enjoy Hajji's wit and humor. He can say more in 3 words than most can do in 50. He is my cousin and I am proud of that. We just come from opposite sides of the political spectrum on a lot of issues. I wouldn't wish to silence him or any of the other visitors to this site. Freedom of speech is a great thing.

Comparing Rwanda to Iraq produces some very interesting results. On the one hand, a president sat on his hands and millions of people died. On the other, a president did something, and several tens of thousands (max, both sides) have died.
Anyone ever remember how many Iraqis would be dead by now, in gruesome ways, if Saddam was still loose? Or are Iraqis not worth our money and sacrifice?
And what about Clinton and all the other Democrats saying Saddam was a "MAJOR DANGER" in the 1990's, and needed to be got rid of? Please, if Bush lied then so did they-first.

Note to self - quit doing what you just apologized for and said you wouldn't do again.

Of course Clinton and Madelaine Albright were telling us during the 90s that Saddam had WMDs and would get more WMDS without sanctions. And Albright was interviewed on TV saying that it was OK to starve hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to death to ensure that. And of course that bin Laden used that as a reason for attacking us. So perhaps you should add the deaths of Iraqis' during the 90s and those 3000 Americans who died on and before 9/11 to Clinton's account.

It's a strange day on the cornblog when Tim H sounds liberal? I won't spread it around.

Antoine, please, stop lumping everyone together. I have offered neither snide comments nor silence. I asked you a question in all seriousness and was completely ignored. Practice what you preach!

clinton fucked up this world so badly i dont know how we got thru the 90s. and yes, great plan, bust the mrs. for anything her husband said, did or didnt do. you sorry fuck. cant say something bad about bush and thugs unless you throw in some "what a sorry fuck clinton was". lets take care of the pile of shit we are in right now and then in 8 or 10 yrs, if we are back on the right path by then we can mother fuck clinton again. when i hear "axis of evil" i think of all the sobs in the white house[unless they are on vacation], then its all the sorry sobs who should be at the white house. i'd give 2 in. of my dick to be back in clinton days.

ed-
You had 2 years to select, pick, and groom a candidate with a message. You couldn't do it.

Republicans have held power over all three branches for 5 years, be patient.

So long as your party is split on the war, and the Ipsos poll shows you the divide, you will be adrift. Straddling two positions is a recipe for doom.

If as you believe that Iraq is a terrible mess, why is troop retention level higher than projected?

80% of the country was oppressed by 20%. Now the roles have reversed. Bush was hoping for perfection, but is done waiting on the Sunni's. when is the last time you read about Iraqi troop levels? when is the last time you saw a panel of soldiers(with conflicting views) on the news?

IF there was no clear policy in Iraq, do you think the troops would be reenlisting? You don't know what is happening there, and for you to establish your beliefs based on the media, you are the biggest fool ever.

Please stake the dems to the 'Iraq is a failure' position. When the Iraqi representative appears at the Whitehouse or the UN, shout him down as a liar. Unless Civil War breaks out, and it's kind of hard for the Sunni's to make a move against 80% of the country. This debate ends the day they vote on Constitution. We back off, and the Iraqi's will be hitting the streets. Their streets.

I would stump you by asking when the vote occurs, for someone who has been following failure, you'd probably want to take the day off-
its called for on October 15. More people than the 8 million who voted for the Assembly, will be voting. Worst case, the Sunni's reject in their 3 provinces, and the Assembly says:"Good enough".

The reality is that bribes are being made, and when push comes to shove, the Sunni's go along. If not we leave them to the Iraqi nationals. Our mission is to establish a government. They'll have a Constitution by the end of October. They'll have a government and a plan afew months later. We won't stay much longer. If we were, we would have increased troop levels by now. Part of the plan is to allow the Iraqis to win their own freedom rather than having it handed to them.

When we are bringing home 60,000 troops after the constitution and election, it is going to be real stupid to call it a failure. Maybe July 4th weekend?

When we have established a government we go. There is a constitution that must be ratified, and then the leaders will be selected. these are two short term goals that will break the anti-war dems.

If you guys could hold your chins out just a little further, Rove might do you a favor and knock you unconscious with the first hit. Brace yourself.

Antione;
Please take a cue from some of the other non-liberal posters. Unless and until the bloggers here begin to formulate viable ideas rather than just baying at the moon, most Americans will not take them seriously.
Followed by:
There is a greatness in the American spirit, the American soul that transcends politics. We should all strive to celebrate that sensation, not our darker sides.

I'll take that as a rejection of my belief that dialog is needed. Instead I see that in order to be smart, intelligent and well informed, and American I must agree with you in all particulars. Sounds like a boring world, but I'm sure you'll be quite happy.

Let me say up front, I am a conservative. I warned people of genocide in april 1994. I had a fear that Clinton would handle this the same way he handled Somalia and that is, put his own narcissistic political needs ahead of the proper policy. When the news media gave minimal coverage and almost no video, I was stupified. When Christine Shelley, the State department spokesperson stuttered through the convoluted press conference about "Genocidal acts", but "no genocide". I couldn't believe what I was hearing. I thought to myself, using word games to sell Health care or whatever was good old fashioned politics and more of the same for the "war room" of the Clinton administration, but spoon feeding that pablum to the media and then the media walking away scratching their heads thinking what are we going to do now. I can't fault "all" of the left for allowing this to happen. I don't know for sure, but I believe that many on the left and most of the media were whispering to themselves, "Please Bill, Please do something, you can do it, come on boy". He was frozen by his political bungle in Mogadishu. He was in over his head and Stephanopolous said in his book, that Clinton's solution was to call for more brainstorming sessions in hopes that a consensus would emerge...then another, then another. Many people fault GWB for making decisions without consulting the UN or the allies or pollsters. Sometimes presidential leadership requires that America take a stand when the rest of the world is confused and frozen by fear and inaction. Many times the UN, the Europeans, and the American people are waiting to hear leadership get up and walk. Clinton loved to give speeches about, "Never again". He also claims that he would have a greater legacy if he had grand challenges like 911. In this case, nearly a milllion lives hung in the balance and he crawled under the covers and hid. Every time a foreign challenge knocked, he lowered the blinds. I am still disgusted to this day. I believe liberalism is dangerous for Americans and the world, but I can not bring myself to believe that the liberal media and most democrats do not secretly loath this particular episode of cowardice and ineptitude on the part of President Clinton. If they do not get sick at the thought of his indifference and his disregard for the sanctity of these lives, then the level of delusion and self deception of the left is so deep, that I fear that if they will try to spin a holocaust or say "so and so" did it too, then there is absolutely no limits to what horrors they will accomodate to defend their political bretheran and demonize their opponents and when there are no limits to loyalty, the term "never again" can be translated to "Coming to your neighborhood soon".

John, was that your best shot.

I do beleive that rose petals and chocolates marked the Iraq war as a success...greeted as liberators...LOL!
Only five years John...is that all? And yet nothing, still producing nothing other than tired old Liberal bashing.

You type and all I read is a sad monologue of Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter talking points. I doubt you even really beleive half of it.
Is there any way you could whine about the Mexican border in your next post, that'd make my day.

Score three more conservative voters for Katrina, she'll hopefully thin out the Republican base, maybe blow a Fox reporter out to sea as well...if we're lucky it'll be OReilly.

Alex at #100. Great thoughts. Hope you will come back and contribute more. Someone above tried to claim that Hussein's Iraq was a grave threat to its neighbors while the situation in Rwanda was not. Actually, Bush the elder stopped short of "finishing the job" in part, many argue, because many of the governments persuaded him the destabilizing Iraw inernally by compeletly taking out its secular tyrant could leave to civil war in Iraq and further destabilize the Middle East as a whole as external interests (e.g., Iran) tried to influence the situation. Meanwhile, horrific tribal conflict and voilence of the kind that occured in Rwanda can and did "threaten" neighboering countries in very real ways such as: (i) send unmanageable amounts of refugees into already troubled countries, and (ii) drawing in members of the same tribal groups, the geographical boundries of which, as many may know, cross over many of the artificial national borders drawn by the colonial powers in Europe so long ago. Side note to Antoine, or shall I call you "Tonito"? If you're going to hang around will you please, please try to post in Spanish again? I had occasional fits of laughter thinking about your earlier attempts and it lifted my day. Must and odd mixed up dialect they use in Saltillo, eh? Riendome a carcajadas ... Cheers.

Sounds like clinton wasn't guilty of looking the other way, but was innocent of "misadventure" involving non-whites.

Of course if he had decided to undoubtadly ruin Rwanda with American intervention (that