Clinton chose to ignore genocide

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by jimnyc, Mar 31, 2004.

  1. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    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.

    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.

    Read the rest here:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1182431,00.html
     
  2. William Joyce
    Offline

    William Joyce Chemotherapy for PC

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Messages:
    9,693
    Thanks Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Caucasiastan
    Ratings:
    +1,349
    Depending on whether this was before or after the skinnies dragged a U.S. serviceman through the streets of Mogadishu, that may have had an impact. Getting involved in Africa is more ludicrous than our involvement in the Middle East. That latter is a little primitive, but the former practice cannibalism. We think we can stride in with the Marines, restore order and watch democracy bloom. But it never happens, and our fighting men sacrifice their lives. It's an example of U.S. politicians ignoring racial reality and racial difference but wanting to feel good about themselves at the same time.

    It's almost like racial socialism. We think if we give the inner city folks welfare cash, it'll change things. It won't. And it doesn't. It just makes it worse. Same for African military intervention.
     
  3. Zhukov
    Offline

    Zhukov VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,492
    Thanks Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Everywhere, simultaneously.
    Ratings:
    +301
    What could really have been done though? Getting ourselves entagled in some internal African conflict would have been costly and likely largely ineffective. More so if it were under UN auspices.
     

Share This Page