Obama ISIS Inaction-Similar to Clinton & Rwanda

[Book of Jeremiah]

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.

While I disagree strongly with everything Obama has done - let's stay on topic here with Clinton... Clinton is quite selective and deceptive in what he publicly regrets! Did he regret brutally raping a woman and biting her lip like an animal? No. He has yet to even admit it. The day will come that Clinton's life (along with all mankind) will be played like a movie - called - This was your life! In it? Every evil thing he has ever gotten away with will be known and he will spend the rest of eternity in hell as his reward. He may have fooled many people - but he has not fooled God Almighty and he will answer to him one day. So will his wife.

 

[georgephillip]

I'm wondering if I'm still in the same thread.

I'm wondering if you lack the intelligence to learn from past mistakes.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Prote 10765192

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.

It's immoral for you to demand without addressing all the ramifications of sending US ground troops to intervene prior to the armies of the region engaging these killers in their own back yard. No need to sacrifice American lives unless it's the last resort.

Sending our pilots there was a last resort - lets hope they all remain safe. They are not doing pin pricks.

It is ignorant to call the air campaign a bunch of pin pricks.

And the Iraqis don't want our guys fighting on the ground for them or with them.

Iraqi foreign minister condemns deployment of additional US troops. Published February 12th, 2015 - 08:00 GMT via SyndiGate.info


So there's more immorality on your part. You seek to undermine the sovereignty of the very same government that 4584 Americans sacrificed their lives in a war they were told was to find WMDs that were not there.


What a crock this is:

Prote 10765128.

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.

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?

 

[Camp]

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.

Really, there was legislation passed by the House in regards to funding a military campaign against ISIS that got grid locked? I would like to review that legislation. Did it have a number on it? Is there a link to what the legislation was about?

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

And you are immoral about it. You create a false OP, and you get laughed at. That's how it works.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bush stayed out of Rwanda as well.

Neither Bush was in office in 1994. when the massive genocide in Rwanda took place. It was Clinton's regret.

It was still going on at least for eight more years. And Bush the Younger did nothing about Darfur.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

While I disagree strongly with everything Obama has done - let's stay on topic here with Clinton... Clinton is quite selective and deceptive in what he publicly regrets! Did he regret brutally raping a woman and biting her lip like an animal? No. He has yet to even admit it. The day will come that Clinton's life (along with all mankind) will be played like a movie - called - This was your life! In it? Every evil thing he has ever gotten away with will be known and he will spend the rest of eternity in hell as his reward. He may have fooled many people - but he has not fooled God Almighty and he will answer to him one day. So will his wife.

God's holy ones reject you as His anointed or prophet or judge.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There was no legislation funding a war against ISIS that was locked up in the House.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Jere 10765240

While I disagree strongly with everything Obama has done

Do you disagree with killing the majority of 8,000 DAIISH terrorist scum without losing one American pilot? Just for the record will you answer that question?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jeri is really an Islamic plant for jihadism. Or she should be with what she is saying.

 

[georgephillip]

ISIS is jihad. That has been around for 1400 years, and continues. And what were you asking about Iran

IS comes directly from the US invasion of Iraq, no invasion, no IS. If you want to end IS, stop murdering innocent Muslims for money. When are you leaving for Tehran, BTW?

 

[protectionist]

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.

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.

In oher words you're unable to respond to the previous post. 10-4. Message received.

 

[protectionist]

Could it simply be that Our Kenyan Emperor, like Nero, might enjoy watching the spectacles?

Could be. Could be.

 

[protectionist]

ISIS is jihad. That has been around for 1400 years, and continues. And what were you asking about Iran

IS comes directly from the US invasion of Iraq, no invasion, no IS. If you want to end IS, stop murdering innocent Muslims for money. When are you leaving for Tehran, BTW?

Already refuted this dopey notion, disproved by 1400 years of constant jihad. So again, what's all this about Iran. Are you asking about the idea of attacking them with military force. Of course . That should have been done years ago. But Obama is their buddies, and also has a strange habit of waiting until enemies get strong enough to be very dangerous.

Crazy or stupid. Take your pick.

 

[protectionist]

I'm wondering if I'm still in the same thread.

I'm wondering if you lack the intelligence to learn from past mistakes.

Did you have some ALLEGED "mistakes" in mind ?

 

[protectionist]

Prote 10765192

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.

It's immoral for you to demand without addressing all the ramifications of sending US ground troops to intervene prior to the armies of the region engaging these killers in their own back yard. No need to sacrifice American lives unless it's the last resort.

Sending our pilots there was a last resort - lets hope they all remain safe. They are not doing pin pricks.

It is ignorant to call the air campaign a bunch of pin pricks.

And the Iraqis don't want our guys fighting on the ground for them or with them.

Iraqi foreign minister condemns deployment of additional US troops. Published February 12th, 2015 - 08:00 GMT via SyndiGate.info


So there's more immorality on your part. You seek to undermine the sovereignty of the very same government that 4584 Americans sacrificed their lives in a war they were told was to find WMDs that were not there.


What a crock this is:

Prote 10765128.

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.

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?

Sounds like you don't have much of a grasp on all this:

1. Yes there is a need to sacrifice American lives. A greater need now than at any time in American history. The threat from ISIS and Pakistan Taliban is NUCLEAR. Aren't you aware ? Obama is.

George Clooney on Obama and Pakistan - POLITICO.com

2. "Pin pricks" is nor my phrase. It is from 3 US Generals - 3 star Air Force Lt. General Thomas McInerney, 2 star Army Major General Bob Scales, and 4 star General Jack Keane. No offense, but rather than your version, I'll go with the Generals.

US Generals on Iraq Obama Must Do More Than Pinprick Airstrikes

3. When it comes to the defense of the USA (especially against nuclear annihilation), i doesn't matter one iota what the Iraqis (or anybody else) wants. You do what you have to do. That means sending the whole US military, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME, and in ANY WAY. So what are you going to wait for ? An invitation ? What do you think this is ? A wedding ?

 

[protectionist]

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.

Really, there was legislation passed by the House in regards to funding a military campaign against ISIS that got grid locked? I would like to review that legislation. Did it have a number on it? Is there a link to what the legislation was about?

Why would there be when the Republicans know that Harry Reid would shoot it down, before Obama could do the same ?

 

[protectionist]

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.

And you are immoral about it. You create a false OP, and you get laughed at. That's how it works.

Words like "false OP"......"immoral".......and "laughed at", need to have SUBSTANCE to back them up. You haven't provided any. Result ? It is YOU who is being laughed at.

 

[Gracie]

We didn't do a damn thing about the millions murdered in Germany either, did we?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Do you know one of your Fox News Generals call five airstrikes to save the Yazdis in Iraq pin picks.

http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/588075

We have averaged nearly a hundred a day since August to January 6

.
Warplanes: The Air War Over Iraq And Syria

January 6, 2015: On August 8 2014 the U.S. resumed air attacks against Islamic terrorists in Iraq. Between then and the end of the year over 14,000 sorties were flown, mostly by American aircraft but also by those from NATO and nearby Arab countries as well as Australia and Canada. Only ten percent of those sorties result in an aircraft using a smart bomb or missile. About two thirds of the air operations are against ISIL (Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant) in Iraq. Half of the air strikes in Syria have been carried out by American warplanes. The rest have been flown by NATO and Arab countries. Most of the air activity has been in Iraq because these operations began in Iraq began in early August while those in Syria did not begin until late on September 22nd. Moreover most NATO nations prefer to restrict their operations to Iraq, so only the U.S. and five Arab nations are bombing in Syria.

One of the limitations has been finding suitable targets. The strikes in Syria are limited by the lack of reliable people on the ground to confirm targets. This is less of a problem in Iraq where there are Iraqi air controllers and some Iraqi army units that are reliable enough to provide reliable target data. Then there are the Kurds (in Iraq and Syria) where Special Forces controllers can operate with Kurdish militia groups they know (and often trained over the years). The trained Kurdish fighters are spread thin, trying to protect long borders and widespread Kurdish civilian populations. As more American controller terms get into Iraq and Syria, the air attacks against ISIL combat forces will become more frequent and effective. Most targets do far are identified from the air and then verified and approved by two control centers in Iraq (one outside Baghdad and the other in the Kurdish controlled north.)

Many of the older ISIL fighters, with experience fighting American air power in Iraq (and, for a few ISIL men, Afghanistan) know that with enough information about what is on the ground and enough bombers in the air ISIL will no longer be able to take and hold ground. This explains the changes in ISIL offensive operations, which are now more hit and run than hit and hold. ISIL leaders know that as time goes by they will not be able to travel easily by road or even cross country on foot. Syrian civilians have also gotten the word and air reconnaissance shows civilians fleeing residential areas where ISIL has sought sanctuary from the air strikes. ISIL will be forced to follow the Taliban practice of forcing (at gunpoint) civilians to stick around to discourage the warplanes above.

Warplanes The Air War Over Iraq And Syria