Hillary declined to comment on Rwanda

Wow!  Patrick Healy of the New York Times wrote an article about Hillary's First Lady Foreign Policy experience.   Read full article @

The Résumé Factor: Those 8 Years as First Lady - New York Times

The article confirms what we've suspected about Hillary and Rwanda:

"..She did not assert herself on the crises in Somalia, Haiti and Rwanda"

Deep in the article Mr. Healy talks about why the Clinton Administration ignored ethnic cleansing in Rwanda - they were focused on ethnic cleansing in the Balkans.  The Clinton's priorities were clear - save the white Europeans, ignore the black Africans.

"... Former White House officials say that no one — not the national security team, not the president, not the first lady — was seriously pushing for American military intervention to stop or slow the unfolding genocide there(in Rwanda); the administration’s focus was on confronting the ethnic bloodshed in the Balkans. Mrs. Clinton declined to comment on Rwanda."

Hillary declined to comment - what a surprise!  However, Mr. Healy did ask her about it and her refusal to comment probably raised some red flags at the Times and at Clinton campaign HQ.   Her campaign, feeling good they had avoided the question this deep in the campaign, now has to regroup and come up with an answer about Rwanda that voters will swallow - even if they choke on it, as long as they choke on it after the election's over.

Why would Hillary, who often says her First Lady experience sets her apart from other candidates, decline to comment about one of mankind's worst genocides that happened on her husband's watch?  Probably for the same reason that, according to the article, "Documents about her work remain classified at the National Archives."  

The reason - Hillary doesn't reveal anything unflattering if she, or her lawyers, can help it.  Her campaign staff even reviews comments on her campaign videos at YouTube and screens out negative comments, like a few from yours truly.

Success!  This is the first crack in the dam preventing Justice 4 Rwanda.  Although Hillary declined comment, the fact that she was asked tells me that the Rwanda Genocide, and the Clinton's failure to intervene, is now being discussed with NY-DC-Media folk and that is a step forward.

Why aren't black leaders angry at the Clintons?

In 1994, during the Rwanda Genocide, hundreds of thousands over 800,000 blacks were butchered to death, mostly with machetes - an unthinkable way to die. Hundreds of thousands of black women and children were raped and murdered.

What was the Clinton response to this suffering by blacks on a scale not seen since the slave trade? They voted to withdraw U.N. peacekeepers and parse the word genocide. They could not admit it was genocide or they would be obligated under the 1948 UN Genocide Convention to intervene - "Never again!", the U.S. and it's allies promised.

When ethnic cleansing of blacks began in Rwanda, the Clintons took action to airlift (mostly white) U.S. citizens out of harm's way, then voted to withdraw U.N. peace keepers from Rwanda and deny genocide was taking place. Years later, during the ethnic cleansing of whites in Kosovo, the Clintons were quick to assist the Europeans intervene with U.S. troops and stop the genocide.

So, let's recap:

When white Europeans were threatened with ethnic cleansing - the Clintons took quick action to stop it.

When black Africans were threatened with ethnic cleansing - the Clintons took quick action to make it worse and deny genocide was happening.

Yet support among blacks and their leaders has remained very strong. Ironically, Bill Clinton came to be known as the "nation's first black President" and was later honored by the Congressional Black Caucus. Most recently, Andrew Young, Carter's U.N. Ambassador, said Clinton was "blacker than Obama because Bill's been with more black women". It's hard to imagine that a civil rights leader has forgotten that Clinton did nothing about the only African genocide of the 20th century.

On December 15, 1999, a report on the UN's response to the genocide concluded that “the UN and its member states could have stepped in and stopped the killing, but failed to do so” and that, “A force numbering 2,500 should have been able to stop or at least limit massacres of the kind which began in Rwanda”. Clinton himself admitted in 2003 that had in sent in "10-15,000 troops he might have saved about half.

So, Clinton made a mistake in judgement that, by his own admission, could have prevented the slaughter of 400,000 blacks.

What was Hillary's role? She often says her experience as First Lady sets her apart from Obama and Edwards. She's right - does anyone doubt that Barack and his wife would have done something about an African genocide? Hillary says she has a long history of fighting for women and children - so, why was she silent for over 100 days while hundreds of thousands of black women and children were raped and butchered?

Wake up America! George Bush was 3 or 4 days late getting to New Orleans after Katrina and Kanye West says, "Bush doesn't care about black people". Imus uses the term, "nappy-headed whores" and he's widely critized as a racist and fired. Halle Barry says Holloywood is racist because they overlook her and other black actors for important roles. L.A. cops are acquitted of beating Rodney King and riots erupt.

Imagine what would happen if a white couple in power intervened to stop a genocide of white Europeans but denied a genocide of black Africans was happening at all and, as a result, 800,000 blacks lost their lives at a murder rate five times the Holocaust?

Would you denounce this couple? Call them racists? Organize protests wherever they spoke? Have them fired? Have them prosecuted for crimes against humanity in what might be called the "Black Holocaust"?

Hard to say, but one things for sure - you would not elect one of them U.S. President.