Obama ISIS Inaction-Similar to Clinton & Rwanda

protectionist

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
41,672
Reaction score
8,725
Points
2,030
Bill Clinton once said the biggest regret of his presidency was his inaction regarding Rwanda. After taking action to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, Clinton (like other world leaders), sat back and did nothing while 800,000 Rwandans (mostly Tutsis) were slaughtered by their Hutu neighbors.

Fast foward to 2015. Now we have Obama sitting back and watching thousands of Iraqis and Syrians being slaughtered by ISIS. And all the while, Obama doesn't seem to care. He's more interested in appeasing his liberal American voter base, telling him to stay out of it.

Clinton at least expresses regret for his tragic inaction. Obama hasn't done that yet. It remains to be seen if he ever will.

The photos I could post of ISIS brutality, are ommitted only because of their exceedingly, horrifying nature.
 

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
38,976
Reaction score
3,304
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
Fast foward to 2015. Now we have Obama sitting back and watching thousands of Iraqis and Syrians being slaughtered by ISIS.
IS would not exist if the US hadn't previously maimed, murdered, and displaced millions of innocent Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan. You're solution is to double down in Syria? What's wrong with Iran?
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
12,509
Reaction score
1,791
Points
245
Prote 10764739
And all the while, Obama doesn't seem to care.
I won't use the weasel word that you did - "seem" - You don't have your head screwed on right.

8000 dead DAIISH terrorist scum since August in Iraq and Syria by a coalition formed and led by Obama and you wrote that?
 

JakeStarkey

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
168,037
Reaction score
16,462
Points
2,165
Protectionist is scum, always has been and always will be.
 

Book of Jeremiah

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2012
Messages
37,635
Reaction score
4,510
Points
1,170
Bill Clinton once said the biggest regret of his presidency was his inaction regarding Rwanda. After taking action to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, Clinton (like other world leaders), sat back and did nothing while 800,000 Rwandans (mostly Tutsis) were slaughtered by their Hutu neighbors.

Fast foward to 2015. Now we have Obama sitting back and watching thousands of Iraqis and Syrians being slaughtered by ISIS. And all the while, Obama doesn't seem to care. He's more interested in appeasing his liberal American voter base, telling him to stay out of it.

Clinton at least expresses regret for his tragic inaction. Obama hasn't done that yet. It remains to be seen if he ever will.

The photos I could post of ISIS brutality, are ommitted only because of their exceedingly, horrifying nature.
Clinton is far more guilty than Obama when making this comparison. First of all realize that above all, Bill Clinton is a liar. (So is his wife) Second, this is what he left out - in his story of "regret". He can save it for God Almighty - who will judge him one day for all of this. Note - The Tutsi's were the ones slaughtered and they were Christians. The Hutu's were Muslim. There were some moderate Muslim Hutu that were killed as well. Here is the real story of what Bill Clinton did.

Bystanders to Genocide - The Atlantic

A few years later, in a series in The New Yorker, Philip Gourevitch recounted in horrific detail the story of the genocide and the world's failure to stop it. President Bill Clinton, a famously avid reader, expressed shock. He sent copies of Gourevitch's articles to his second-term national-security adviser, Sandy Berger. The articles bore confused, angry, searching queries in the margins. "Is what he's saying true?" Clinton wrote with a thick black felt-tip pen beside heavily underlined paragraphs. "How did this happen?" he asked, adding, "I want to get to the bottom of this." The President's urgency and outrage were oddly timed. As the terror in Rwanda had unfolded, Clinton had shown virtually no interest in stopping the genocide, and his Administration had stood by as the death toll rose into the hundreds of thousands.

Why did the United States not do more for the Rwandans at the time of the killings? Did the President really not know about the genocide, as his marginalia suggested? Who were the people in his Administration who made the life-and-death decisions that dictated U.S. policy? Why did they decide (or decide not to decide) as they did? Were any voices inside or outside the U.S. government demanding that the United States do more? If so, why weren't they heeded? And most crucial, what could the United States have done to save lives?

So far people have explained the U.S. failure to respond to the Rwandan genocide by claiming that the United States didn't know what was happening, that it knew but didn't care, or that regardless of what it knew there was nothing useful to be done. The account that follows is based on a three-year investigation involving sixty interviews with senior, mid-level, and junior State Department, Defense Department, and National Security Council officials who helped to shape or inform U.S. policy. It also reflects dozens of interviews with Rwandan, European, and United Nations officials and with peacekeepers, journalists, and nongovernmental workers in Rwanda. Thanks to the National Security Archive (www.nsarchive.org), a nonprofit organization that uses the Freedom of Information Act to secure the release of classified U.S. documents, this account also draws on hundreds of pages of newly available government records. This material provides a clearer picture than was previously possible of the interplay among people, motives, and events. It reveals that the U.S. government knew enough about the genocide early on to save lives, but passed up countless opportunities to intervene.

In March of 1998, on a visit to Rwanda, President Clinton issued what would later be known as the "Clinton apology," which was actually a carefully hedged acknowledgment. He spoke to the crowd assembled on the tarmac at Kigali Airport: "We come here today partly in recognition of the fact that we in the United States and the world community did not do as much as we could have and should have done to try to limit what occurred" in Rwanda.

This implied that the United States had done a good deal but not quite enough. In reality the United States did much more than fail to send troops. It led a successful effort to remove most of the UN peacekeepers who were already in Rwanda. It aggressively worked to block the subsequent authorization of UN reinforcements. It refused to use its technology to jam radio broadcasts that were a crucial instrument in the coordination and perpetuation of the genocide. And even as, on average, 8,000 Rwandans were being butchered each day, U.S. officials shunned the term "genocide," for fear of being obliged to act. The United States in fact did virtually nothing "to try to limit what occurred." Indeed, staying out of Rwanda was an explicit U.S. policy objective.

With the grace of one grown practiced at public remorse, the President gripped the lectern with both hands and looked across the dais at the Rwandan officials and survivors who surrounded him. Making eye contact and shaking his head, he explained, "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 [pause] the depth [pause] and the speed [pause] with which you were being engulfed by this unimaginable terror."

Clinton chose his words with characteristic care. It was true that although top U.S. officials could not help knowing the basic facts—thousands of Rwandans were dying every day—that were being reported in the morning papers, many did not "fully appreciate" the meaning. In the first three weeks of the genocide the most influential American policymakers portrayed (and, they insist, perceived) the deaths not as atrocities or the components and symptoms of genocide but as wartime "casualties"—the deaths of combatants or those caught between them in a civil war.
________________
800,000 plus Tutsi Christians and some Hutu Muslims - moderate (far less number) were slaughtered on Bill Clinton's watch and he assisted in the massacre by doing everything in his power to lessen their odds of survival and NOT help them. He's got blood on his hands. Regrets? He most likely regrets that the world found out about it.
 
Last edited:

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
38,976
Reaction score
3,304
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
Bush stayed out of Rwanda as well.
Western multinational corporations have long had deep ties to criminal extortion, money laundering, racketeering, and mass murder in the Great Lakes countries of Africa, Every Bush and Clinton serves those getting rich from plundering and depopulating those unfortunate Africans who get in the way of progre$$.
 

Camp

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2013
Messages
28,610
Reaction score
7,816
Points
280
Bill Clinton once said the biggest regret of his presidency was his inaction regarding Rwanda. After taking action to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, Clinton (like other world leaders), sat back and did nothing while 800,000 Rwandans (mostly Tutsis) were slaughtered by their Hutu neighbors.

Fast foward to 2015. Now we have Obama sitting back and watching thousands of Iraqis and Syrians being slaughtered by ISIS. And all the while, Obama doesn't seem to care. He's more interested in appeasing his liberal American voter base, telling him to stay out of it.

Clinton at least expresses regret for his tragic inaction. Obama hasn't done that yet. It remains to be seen if he ever will.

The photos I could post of ISIS brutality, are ommitted only because of their exceedingly, horrifying nature.
Send those photo's to the dysfunctional Republican congress that seems incapable of being anything other than inept. Five months after we began a bombing campaign and the "do nothing" Republicans have yet to offer funding of any kind or the least bit of congressional direction in the way of legislative guidance.
 
OP
protectionist

protectionist

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
41,672
Reaction score
8,725
Points
2,030
Wow! You have proof that ISIS is evil and nasty??!!

What a fucking revelation.

Thanks.
It wasn't posted as a revelation. The point is the comparison between Clinton's regret, and Obama's lack of it. Are you really not on track enough to have picked up on that ?
 
OP
protectionist

protectionist

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
41,672
Reaction score
8,725
Points
2,030
Obama is "staying out of it"???

Hmmmmmm. I anticipate a nutter fight.
Yeah, he's been staying out of it. Do you see Dempsey or Ordierno going over there with thousands of US ground troops, like Eisenhower did on D-Day. ? Do you see US bombers carpet bombing the crap out of ISIS (even when they're on the move out in the open on highways, like sitting ducks) ? I don't call Obama's ridiculous little pin prick airstrikes, really getting involved. I don't know who in the world would.
 
OP
protectionist

protectionist

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
41,672
Reaction score
8,725
Points
2,030
Bush stayed out of Rwanda as well.
Western multinational corporations have long had deep ties to criminal extortion, money laundering, racketeering, and mass murder in the Great Lakes countries of Africa, Every Bush and Clinton serves those getting rich from plundering and depopulating those unfortunate Africans who get in the way of progre$$.
I'm wondering if I'm still in the same thread.
 
OP
protectionist

protectionist

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
41,672
Reaction score
8,725
Points
2,030
Bill Clinton once said the biggest regret of his presidency was his inaction regarding Rwanda. After taking action to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, Clinton (like other world leaders), sat back and did nothing while 800,000 Rwandans (mostly Tutsis) were slaughtered by their Hutu neighbors.

Fast foward to 2015. Now we have Obama sitting back and watching thousands of Iraqis and Syrians being slaughtered by ISIS. And all the while, Obama doesn't seem to care. He's more interested in appeasing his liberal American voter base, telling him to stay out of it.

Clinton at least expresses regret for his tragic inaction. Obama hasn't done that yet. It remains to be seen if he ever will.

The photos I could post of ISIS brutality, are ommitted only because of their exceedingly, horrifying nature.
Send those photo's to the dysfunctional Republican congress that seems incapable of being anything other than inept. Five months after we began a bombing campaign and the "do nothing" Republicans have yet to offer funding of any kind or the least bit of congressional direction in the way of legislative guidance.
For almost all that time there has been gridlock between a Rep House and a Dem Senate + Obama's anti-war at all costs approach.
 

LoneLaugher

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2011
Messages
61,304
Reaction score
9,443
Points
2,040
Location
Inside Mac's Head
Obama is "staying out of it"???

Hmmmmmm. I anticipate a nutter fight.
Yeah, he's been staying out of it. Do you see Dempsey or Ordierno going over there with thousands of US ground troops, like Eisenhower did on D-Day. ? Do you see US bombers carpet bombing the crap out of ISIS (even when they're on the move out in the open on highways, like sitting ducks) ? I don't call Obama's ridiculous little pin prick airstrikes, really getting involved. I don't know who in the world would.
Why not just walk around town with a dunce cap on. Same result.
 
OP
protectionist

protectionist

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
41,672
Reaction score
8,725
Points
2,030
Fast foward to 2015. Now we have Obama sitting back and watching thousands of Iraqis and Syrians being slaughtered by ISIS.
IS would not exist if the US hadn't previously maimed, murdered, and displaced millions of innocent Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan. You're solution is to double down in Syria? What's wrong with Iran?
ISIS is jihad. That has been around for 1400 years, and continues. And what were you asking about Iran ? ???
 
OP
protectionist

protectionist

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
41,672
Reaction score
8,725
Points
2,030
Protectionist is scum, always has been and always will be.
HA HA. Well, that solidifies just what YOU are. Just what you said I am. And the word "scum" implies a moral judgement. Nothing I've said has anything to do with morals (other than the obvious immorality of Islam) This is a simple Constitutional and legal matter.
 
OP
protectionist

protectionist

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
41,672
Reaction score
8,725
Points
2,030
Bill Clinton once said the biggest regret of his presidency was his inaction regarding Rwanda. After taking action to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, Clinton (like other world leaders), sat back and did nothing while 800,000 Rwandans (mostly Tutsis) were slaughtered by their Hutu neighbors.

Fast foward to 2015. Now we have Obama sitting back and watching thousands of Iraqis and Syrians being slaughtered by ISIS. And all the while, Obama doesn't seem to care. He's more interested in appeasing his liberal American voter base, telling him to stay out of it.

Clinton at least expresses regret for his tragic inaction. Obama hasn't done that yet. It remains to be seen if he ever will.

The photos I could post of ISIS brutality, are ommitted only because of their exceedingly, horrifying nature.
Clinton is far more guilty than Obama when making this comparison. First of all realize that above all, Bill Clinton is a liar. (So is his wife) Second, this is what he left out - in his story of "regret". He can save it for God Almighty - who will judge him one day for all of this. Note - The Tutsi's were the ones slaughtered and they were Christians. The Hutu's were Muslim. There were some moderate Muslim Hutu that were killed as well. Here is the real story of what Bill Clinton did.

Bystanders to Genocide - The Atlantic

A few years later, in a series in The New Yorker, Philip Gourevitch recounted in horrific detail the story of the genocide and the world's failure to stop it. President Bill Clinton, a famously avid reader, expressed shock. He sent copies of Gourevitch's articles to his second-term national-security adviser, Sandy Berger. The articles bore confused, angry, searching queries in the margins. "Is what he's saying true?" Clinton wrote with a thick black felt-tip pen beside heavily underlined paragraphs. "How did this happen?" he asked, adding, "I want to get to the bottom of this." The President's urgency and outrage were oddly timed. As the terror in Rwanda had unfolded, Clinton had shown virtually no interest in stopping the genocide, and his Administration had stood by as the death toll rose into the hundreds of thousands.

Why did the United States not do more for the Rwandans at the time of the killings? Did the President really not know about the genocide, as his marginalia suggested? Who were the people in his Administration who made the life-and-death decisions that dictated U.S. policy? Why did they decide (or decide not to decide) as they did? Were any voices inside or outside the U.S. government demanding that the United States do more? If so, why weren't they heeded? And most crucial, what could the United States have done to save lives?

So far people have explained the U.S. failure to respond to the Rwandan genocide by claiming that the United States didn't know what was happening, that it knew but didn't care, or that regardless of what it knew there was nothing useful to be done. The account that follows is based on a three-year investigation involving sixty interviews with senior, mid-level, and junior State Department, Defense Department, and National Security Council officials who helped to shape or inform U.S. policy. It also reflects dozens of interviews with Rwandan, European, and United Nations officials and with peacekeepers, journalists, and nongovernmental workers in Rwanda. Thanks to the National Security Archive (www.nsarchive.org), a nonprofit organization that uses the Freedom of Information Act to secure the release of classified U.S. documents, this account also draws on hundreds of pages of newly available government records. This material provides a clearer picture than was previously possible of the interplay among people, motives, and events. It reveals that the U.S. government knew enough about the genocide early on to save lives, but passed up countless opportunities to intervene.

In March of 1998, on a visit to Rwanda, President Clinton issued what would later be known as the "Clinton apology," which was actually a carefully hedged acknowledgment. He spoke to the crowd assembled on the tarmac at Kigali Airport: "We come here today partly in recognition of the fact that we in the United States and the world community did not do as much as we could have and should have done to try to limit what occurred" in Rwanda.

This implied that the United States had done a good deal but not quite enough. In reality the United States did much more than fail to send troops. It led a successful effort to remove most of the UN peacekeepers who were already in Rwanda. It aggressively worked to block the subsequent authorization of UN reinforcements. It refused to use its technology to jam radio broadcasts that were a crucial instrument in the coordination and perpetuation of the genocide. And even as, on average, 8,000 Rwandans were being butchered each day, U.S. officials shunned the term "genocide," for fear of being obliged to act. The United States in fact did virtually nothing "to try to limit what occurred." Indeed, staying out of Rwanda was an explicit U.S. policy objective.

With the grace of one grown practiced at public remorse, the President gripped the lectern with both hands and looked across the dais at the Rwandan officials and survivors who surrounded him. Making eye contact and shaking his head, he explained, "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 [pause] the depth [pause] and the speed [pause] with which you were being engulfed by this unimaginable terror."

Clinton chose his words with characteristic care. It was true that although top U.S. officials could not help knowing the basic facts—thousands of Rwandans were dying every day—that were being reported in the morning papers, many did not "fully appreciate" the meaning. In the first three weeks of the genocide the most influential American policymakers portrayed (and, they insist, perceived) the deaths not as atrocities or the components and symptoms of genocide but as wartime "casualties"—the deaths of combatants or those caught between them in a civil war.
________________
800,000 plus Tutsi Christians and some Hutu Muslims - moderate (far less number) were slaughtered on Bill Clinton's watch and he assisted in the massacre by doing everything in his power to lessen their odds of survival and NOT help them. He's got blood on his hands. Regrets? He most likely regrets that the world found out about it.
The world knows of Obama's inaction with ISIS, and Obama seems to gloat about it, happily appeases his fanatically anti-military, anti-war, base.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top