• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Can Clinton Sleep At Night?

Mike

Well-known member
Classified papers show Clinton was aware of 'final solution' to eliminate Tutsis

Rory Carroll in Johannesburg
Wednesday March 31, 2004
The Guardian


President Bill Clinton's administration knew Rwanda was being engulfed by genocide in April 1994 but buried the information to justify its inaction, according to classified documents made available for the first time.
Senior officials privately used the word genocide within 16 days of the start of the killings, but chose not to do so publicly because the president had already decided not to intervene.

Intelligence reports obtained using the US Freedom of Information Act show the cabinet and almost certainly the president had been told of a planned "final solution to eliminate all Tutsis" before the slaughter reached its peak.


Article continues

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It took Hutu death squads three months from April 6 to murder an estimated 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus and at each stage accurate, detailed reports were reaching Washington's top policymakers.
The documents undermine claims by Mr Clinton and his senior officials that they did not fully appreciate the scale and speed of the killings.

"It's powerful proof that they knew," said Alison des Forges, a Human Rights Watch researcher and authority on the genocide.

The National Security Archive, an independent non-governmental research institute based in Washington DC, went to court to obtain the material.

It discovered that the CIA's national intelligence daily, a secret briefing circulated to Mr Clinton, the then vice-president, Al Gore, and hundreds of senior officials, included almost daily reports on Rwanda. One, dated April 23, said rebels would continue fighting to "stop the genocide, which ... is spreading south".

Three days later the state department's intelligence briefing for former secretary of state Warren Christopher and other officials noted "genocide and partition" and reported declarations of a "final solution to eliminate all Tutsis".

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

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

The administration did not want to repeat the fiasco of US intervention in Somalia, where US troops became sucked into fighting. It also felt the US had no interests in Rwanda, a small central African country with no minerals or strategic value.

William Ferroggiaro, of the National Security Archive, said the system had worked. "Diplomats, intelligence agencies, defence and military officials - even aid workers - provided timely information up the chain," he said.

"That the Clinton administration decided against intervention at any level was not for lack of knowledge of what was happening in Rwanda."

Many analysts and historians fault Washington and other western capitals not just for failing to support the token force of overwhelmed UN peacekeepers but for failing to speak out more forcefully during the slaughter.

Some of the Hutu extremists orchestrating events might have heeded such warnings, they have suggested.

Mr Clinton has apologised for those failures but the declassified documents undermine his defence of ignorance. "The level of US intelligence is really amazing," said Mr Ferroggiaro. "A vast array of information was available."

On a visit to the Rwandan capital, Kigali, in 1998 Mr Clinton apologised for not acting quickly enough or immediately calling the crimes genocide.

In what was widely seen as an attempt to diminish his responsibility, he said: "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 speed with which you were being engulfed by this unimaginable terror."

A spokesperson for the William Jefferson Clinton Foundation in New York said the allegations would be relayed to the former president.
 

Steve

Well-known member
"That the Clinton administration decided against intervention at any level was not for lack of knowledge of what was happening in Rwanda."

Many analysts and historians fault Washington and other western capitals not just for failing to support the token force of overwhelmed UN peacekeepers but for failing to speak out more forcefully during the slaughter.

Hillary claims the eight Clinton years as "experience",..

Is Hillary then responsible for results of the Clinton's inaction?
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
My first response is that Bill probably doesn't lose a wink. However, after careful consideration, it is noted that he dozes off regularly in that chair while Hillary is giving one of her Rah Rah speeches.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
How many have died in Darfur since Bush was elected? But he has no problem spending billions of US dollars in Iraq. If this post is true, at least Bill Clinton didn't turn around and spend billions destroying a country just because he didn't like the leader. IMO, the US is not the policeman of the world. We don't need to be jumping out and saving every country that is in trouble. Funny thing, Bush said the same thing when he was trying to get elected the first time.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ff said:
How many have died in Darfur since Bush was elected? But he has no problem spending billions of US dollars in Iraq. If this post is true, at least Bill Clinton didn't turn around and spend billions destroying a country just because he didn't like the leader. IMO, the US is not the policeman of the world. We don't need to be jumping out and saving every country that is in trouble. Funny thing, Bush said the same thing when he was trying to get elected the first time.

$12+ MILLION an HOUR!!!! When we're so broke we're borrowing it from the Chinese..... "FISCAL CONSERVATISM" at its finest :wink: :lol: :lol: :cry: :cry:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
ff said:
How many have died in Darfur since Bush was elected? But he has no problem spending billions of US dollars in Iraq. If this post is true, at least Bill Clinton didn't turn around and spend billions destroying a country just because he didn't like the leader. IMO, the US is not the policeman of the world. We don't need to be jumping out and saving every country that is in trouble. Funny thing, Bush said the same thing when he was trying to get elected the first time.

And AGAIN, the liberals can't man up to their hero lying like a rug. It's always, "But look over there at this guy". I'm not a Republican, but I see a lot of them getting down on Bush. I don't see any liberals ever admitting Bill was a liar. Why can't you do that? To me, it speaks volumes about the makeup of the liberal mindset.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
ff said:
How many have died in Darfur since Bush was elected? But he has no problem spending billions of US dollars in Iraq. If this post is true, at least Bill Clinton didn't turn around and spend billions destroying a country just because he didn't like the leader. IMO, the US is not the policeman of the world. We don't need to be jumping out and saving every country that is in trouble. Funny thing, Bush said the same thing when he was trying to get elected the first time.

And AGAIN, the liberals can't man up to their hero lying like a rug. It's always, "But look over there at this guy". I'm not a Republican, but I see a lot of them getting down on Bush. I don't see any liberals ever admitting Bill was a liar. Why can't you do that? To me, it speaks volumes about the makeup of the liberal mindset.

Whenever Bush supporters on this board are willing to admit their hero lied when he took us into Iraq, maybe, just maybe, we can talk about Bill Clinton lying. And we'll want to include how many people died from Clinton's lies as compared to Bush's lies and the financial cost to this country for both.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Still somebody else's fault..... The Liberal battle cry, "It's somebody else's fault". If you're going to use Bush as Clinton's excuse crutch, don't bitch about anything he does.

I'm a conservative and I'll admit Bush is full of crap. Hell, I'll even give you a double and say Cheney is too. Why can't you as a liberal admit Bill is a liar?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
No doubt Clinton lied- but Clintons lies about being a sex fiend and a playing with cigars in the White House did not come close to those that would leave us in a $9 Trillion dollar debt- with most of that money going into building foreign countries and lining the pockets of the Bush/Cheney elitist buddies...Or being the most hated country in the world- while our economy goes into the dumps and the joe blow on the street will be the one that suffers the most....

I was not a Clinton fan-as I feel he started this globalist unregulated policy of sending all industry and jobs overseas- that GW accelerated and has led to the recession/depression/economic breakdown we are headed toward... I voted against him twice-never really liked him-- but still think he was leagues ahead of GW in honesty, transparency-openess in government- and following the US Constitution/laws...
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Bush has never purjured himself. If you'll lie to Congress under oath about a little hanky-panky, who won't you lie to on what subject?
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Did not the esteemed senator from New York vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq??
Seems to me I saw a news report where she said that he WMD were there and we needed to stop this monster who ruled Iraq.
Seems to me I read a report saying the same thing!

Come on folks Bush couldn't have done anything with out the support of congress.
They had the same intelligent reports that he did!
Frankie I fo not care how many cut and pastes you use YOU have by supposed experts!
THEY do not have the intelligent reports nor does OLDTIMER< TEX or anyone else to second guess waht is in them reports,
ARM CHAIR quarterbacks relying on supposed reports that come from 2nd tier individuals that rely on heresay!
OLDTIMER will you accept hearsay in one of your hearings??
Oh i know you all have the reports in front of you about all of the faults of GW but face it GW cannot do anything without support and the senate and congress has give him that support!! BOTH parties
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
Bush has never purjured himself. If you'll lie to Congress under oath about a little hanky-panky, who won't you lie to on what subject?

Thats just because he let his Vice President or his political cronies do that- and then commuted/pardoned them after taking the blame-or blocked their investigation of/ prosecution of (Gonzales)- before pressure could be put on them to spill the beans....
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
I am not really that concerned about Clinton or Bush lying if you look up politician in the dictionary I am sure it would mention something about being a seasoned liar.

What I am concerned about is all the people that have died not because Bush went to war but because Clinton did not man up and be protector and chief of the country he swore to protect.

You guys talk about the debt that Bush is building for our children and grandchildren to pay for. What sickens me is the passiveness of Clinton as commander and chief that put off doing his job to protect America so the next few presidents would have to pay for his debts of lives.

I would rather a President made some mistakes but took the fight to the enemies than put it off for those in the future to have to deal with when they are stronger and more organized. And Yes for the idiots out there that say Iraq was not our enemy I say get your heads out of your butts! Saddam proclaimed to be our enemy and unlike the ability to believe Bill Clinton I actually feel we could trust Saddam!
 
Top