Hillary Just Lost Her Benefits

Not her health benefits, of course, but the benefits of doubt that blacks, humanitarians, Obama folk, media and millions of others have been giving Hillary Clinton for years. 

Early on, it was apparent that her husband cheated on her, more than most, and, incredibly, Hillary stayed.  Many thought she wanted political power and had made a Faustian deal, sparing Bill a divorce scandal in return for a shot at the White House later.  Despite the shot at the White House part coming true later, most gave her the benefit of the doubt, asserting it was a private matter between Hillary and Bill made ugly and public by a "vast right wing conspiracy".   

Later Bill went back on his campaign promise to stop the killing in the former Yugoslavia.   Again, some, such as Sally Bedell Smith and Christopher Hitchens, believed Hillary did not want another Somalia disaster threatening her health care reforms so Hill urged Bill to ignore the Bosnian cries for help (See Hitchens' Slate article here) resulting in over 250,000 deaths.  Supporters gave Hill & Bill the benefit of the doubt defending Bill's inaction by asserting Europeans should help Europeans. 

In 1994, the unthinkable happened.  Over 56,000 blacks per week were being butchered in Rwanda - a murder rate 5 times the Holocaust.  Clinton was quick to get Americans out and supported Belgium's call to pull UN troops out rather than send more troops in.  To get around that pesky UN Genocide Convention, Clinton instructed Secretary of State Christopher and UN Ambassador Albright not to let anyone use the word "genocide" so the US could avoid it's moral and legal obligation to intervene.  Some say Hillary was behind this policy of inaction that let 800,000 die needlessly (See Hillary's Genocide Problem).  Others gave Hillary the benefit of the doubt and believed her when she said she had urged Bill to intervene.    Even African-American leaders gave the Clintons the benefit of the doubt about the worse genocide in African history (see Where's Black Outrage Over Rwanda). 

During the 2008 Presidential Campaign, Billy Shaheen, her New Hampshire Co-Chair, resigned over remarks he made about Barack Obama's past drug use, and his insinuation Obama not only used, but also dealt drugs.  Shaheen claimed he was only raising an issue that Republicans would have raised in the fall (See Clinton Adviser: Obama's Past Drug Use A Liability).  Earth to Billy:  An attack on a Democrat during a Democratic Primary is a Democratic attack not a Republican attack.  Some suggested this was only the latest example of a Classic Clinton tactic of smearing a political opponent, waiting for the smear to get a lot of media coverage so it "sticks" then apologize for the comment.  Net result:  the smear still gets out there and it's cheaper than paying for an ad!  Others (you guessed it!) gave Hillary the benefit of the doubt and resented that Mr. Shaheen made Hillary's campaign look "out of control". 

I could come up with a hundred more examples of deeply offensive behavior, or comments, by the Clintons, or their supporters, that require the benefit of the doubt over and over again. 

Yesterday, Friday, May 24, 2008, Hillary Clinton lost her benefits (See Hillary's Big Mistake).  When asked whether her remaining in the race was hurting the Democratic Party, she mentioned that her husband's campaign didn't "wrap up" until June (it was over in March, 1992) and that "We all remember that Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California". 

WHAT IS SHE IMPLYING??? 

In the context of a question about why she's in the race still (when she has no real chance to win) she brings up RFK's assassination?  Most might say she's implying that, if only someone would take out her opponent, she'd win this thing.  Once again, some may give her the benefit of the doubt but, ding-ding-ding, she's all out of benefits. 

No more for you, Hillary!  You've used up all the good will even your supporters had for a woman and a couple who put themselves first, at the expense of others, for the last time. 

It's especially offensive given that her opponent is a black man and blacks have a sad tragic history of losing their leaders to a sniper.  America's heart still hurts from the loss of Dr. King.  Colin Powell, although absurdly popular, never ran for fear of assassination.   Is there some nut job out there that will hear her words and "step up to help"?  It was a grossly irresponsible comment that I could rant about some more but I thought Keith Olberman said it best, the comments were "Unforgivable".

Obama - Hillary Unfit For V.P.

Obama,

I'm afraid there's been a misunderstanding.

I'm not suggesting that the Clinton's cannot be forgiven for what they did.  Forgiveness is a very personal journey that has to do with one's faith, what kind of apology is given/expected and one's outlook on life.  Some of the survivors in Rwanda, perhaps President Kagame himself, certainly all of Hillary's supporters, may find it in their hearts to forgive the Clintons.  I do not.

I'm asking for a little justice for 800,000 victims of that horrific genocide.   I'm not asking that we charge the Clintons with crimes against humanity - although many do. 

At the very least, Hillary should not be rewarded with the honor of being Vice-President of the United States. 

It would be fantastic if someone asked the Clintons some tough questions about why Bill failed his UN obligation to stop the slaughter in Rwanda.

THE TUTSI WERE HUMAN BEINGS! 

If we don't care about 800,000 fellow humans dying needlessly - what do we care about?

I think we should expect our Presidents to help stop genocides, not ignore them until everyone's dead. 

(Please see UK Guardian: US Chose To Ignore Rwanda Genocide @ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/mar/31/usa.rwanda and the PBS Series: The Triumph of Evil @ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/evil/.)

I'm not trying to implode the Democratic Party - I'm trying to save it.  People are fed up with politics as usual and will vote that way in November.  Barack understands that politics as usual is giving a Democratic President a pass for helping in Kosovo (white Europeans) but abandoning Rwanda (black Africans) simply because he's a Democrat.

The new Barack-refreshing-Audacity-of-Hope-real-change-you-can-believe-in politics is looking out for the poor women and children of Rwanda even though they were not rich, not white, not oil-producing and not American.

Thanks...Matt

p.s.  It's not slander to say that "some guess that Hillary did not want a messy genocide intervention interfering with her health care reforms” - that's a true statement.  Christopher Hitchens and Sally Bedell Smith have suggested as much with Hitchens ending his piece with some good advice, "Let the memory of the truth, and the exposure of the lie, at least make us resolve that no Clinton ever sees the inside of the White House again"  Here, here!  Personally, I have no idea why Bill Clinton prevented UN action to save Rwanda but went around the UN to save Kosovo.  Ultimately - it doesn’t matter - it's inexcusable.

Fox Rejects Hillary Questions

Yesterday, I submitted a comment to Major Garrett of Fox News.  See http://look2thewest.wordpress.com/2008/05/15/my-questions-for-hillary/.

Incredibly, they were rejected.  Yes - it's true.  On some sites, comments are reviewed so they can be screened for various reasons.  Here's how they put it:

FOX News encourages you to participate in this discussion; however, comments that include unlawful, threatening, libelous, or obscene content will not be allowed. For this reason, please note that all comments are moderated and therefore may not appear immediately after submission. For more information, read our Terms of Use and Privacy Statement.

You can judge for yourself if anything I said was "unlawful, threatening, libelous, or obscene" - I think not.

The real reason that many of my comments are screened remains a mystery.  It's not simply along ideological grounds.   Obviously, any comments about Rwanda are screened from HillaryClinton.com.  But Rwanda comments are also screened from Obama web sites (Clinton's competition and an African-American leader) and, even leaning-conservative sites like Fox News.  I'm constructing an inventory of what is screened and where so I can solve the mystery.  Let me know your thoughts.

In any event, my initial comment to Major Garrett's interview was not posted so I re-submitted another version of my comment (below) that is shorter, and to the point, but still has the Rwanda elements.  I'll let you know what happens.

Major - Nice interview.  My sense is that Hillary 2008 is coming to a close and precious few interviews remain to ask substantive questions from reporters like yourself.  Below are some questions I would ask Hillary.

After the Holocaust, we promised “never again” at the 1948 UN Genocide Convention.  In 1994, over 50,000 blacks per week were butchered to death during the Rwanda Genocide.  To avoid our UN obligation, President Clinton tried to convince the world it wasn’t technically “genocide”.   Incredibly, the world believed President Clinton and, for 14 long weeks, the slaughter continued until over 800,000 blacks died. 

1. Senator Clinton - As someone who has fought for women and children for 35 years, why didn’t you speak out publicly against your husband when you saw the news footage of the Kagera River, red with the blood of victims and clogged with the bloated & hacked body parts of women and children?  You call yourself a feminist and yet you remained silent while hundreds of thousands of black women, young and old, were raped and mutilated.  Why did you remain silent?
2. Do you believe your husband’s apologies are enough given that over 800,000 blacks lost their lives on his watch?  Recent reports indicate your husband and V.P. Gore may have been aware as early as week three that a horrific genocide was happening, but did not acknowledge it publicly. 
3. By week three, the Hutus had slaughtered over 100,000 Tutsis.  When did you begin to think it was genocide?  If early on, why not speak out publicly to save lives?  If not until later, why should America trust you to be President if you failed to see such a significant human disaster was unfolding and that urgent action was needed? 

I know these questions are a little rough but the subject matter is rough.  I truly believe journalists have a solemn obligation to hold leaders accountable, even if questions are difficult.

Rush - One Hour For Rwanda?

 

Recent question submitted to Rush Limbaugh @ ElRushbo@eibnet.com

 

Rush,

I understand you're a big fan of Jim Nance and his connection to great moments in sports history.  I get it. 

However, I wonder if you could also spend an hour of your show next week on the Rwanda Genocide. 

Here's why:

My sense is that we are experiencing the last days of Hillary '08.  Before she drops out for "party unity", Hillary should be forced out because the Clintons failed their UN obligation to intervene in Rwanda resulting in 800,000 blacks butchered to death and hundreds of thousands of women, young and old, raped and mutilated. 

No one has made this issue "go national" yet, not even African-Americans. 

YOU COULD!

Not only would it bring down Hillary's campaign but it would destroy Bill Clinton's legacy - weakening Democrats for years and moving this country permanently to the right.  Dems often point to the 90s as an example of how great things are when Democrats are in charge.  Clinton's presidency was a disaster in many respects but not to liberals. Forcing Hillary to resign because the Clintons abandoned Africa during it's worst genocide in history will force even liberals to be ashamed of the Clinton legacy.

Forcing Hillary from the race because of Rwanda would also mean a great deal to hundreds of millions of Africans, and those who care about human rights.  In 1994, Africans looked to the West for help and it never came.  Not only that, but all of the leaders who turned their backs on Africa were rewarded.  Kofi Annan & Madeleine Albright were promoted.  Bill Clinton was re-elected in 1996.  Hillary was elected to the Senate.  In 2008, the Clintons have the arrogance to run again. 

They don't deserve back in the White House - they made a foreign policy mistake that cost 800,000 people their lives.

Pease - do what you can to make this a "national issue" that will force her from the race, and Bill Clinton from favor.   

Thanks...Matt 

Defeat 4 Hillary = Justice 4 Rwanda

My Questions for Hillary

I recently watched a Major Garrett interview of Senator Clinton @

http://bourbonroom.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/05/14/hillary-clinton-its-not-over-till-its-over/#comment-2844

It was a rigorous discussion of inside-the-beltway issues like whether Michigan and Florida should be seated and isn't the recent tide of super delegates to come out for Obama a sign Obama's the presumptive nominee?  As interesting as those topics are for political junkies, like myself, I can't help but wonder why aren't more questions asked that would really help voters make up their minds?

For example:

1. To really reduce the price of gas for those WV nurses (who can't see certain patients because of gas prices), what about drilling in ANWR and off the coasts, with strict environment-protecting controls, and releasing some of the SPR until those new wells come online?  This would really lower the price of gas for average Americans, replace foreign oil sources with domestic and improve our trade deficit.  The Dems have really limited domestic drilling - which has kept domestic supply down.  If Democrats don't go along with it now, why shouldn't those nurses, and everyone else, blame the Democrats for high gas prices?
2. Isn't it true, Senator Clinton, that the booming 90s economy, you keep taking credit for, actually began in March, 1991 - a full 21 months before your husband took office?  Isn't it also true that the 1994 Republican's fiscal discipline and the Bush 41 recovery have more to do with the late 1990s surpluses than anything your husband did?  If so, why should Americans trust you with our economy?  In fact, given the Dem majorities, isn't it more likely a Hillary economy would be more like Carter's economy than the one your husband inherited?
3. Lastly, and far more important, are questions about Rwanda - most media has been afraid to ask the Clintons about Rwanda – until now.  After the Holocaust, we promised “never again” at the 1948 UN Genocide Convention.  In 1994, over 50,000 blacks per week were butchered to death during the Rwanda Genocide.  To avoid our UN obligation, President Clinton tried to convince the world it wasn’t technically “genocide”.   Incredibly, the world believed President Clinton and, for 14 long weeks, the slaughter continued until over 800,000 blacks died.  Senator Clinton - As someone who has fought for women and children for 35 years, why didn’t you speak out publicly against your husband when you saw the news footage of the Kagera River, red with the blood of victims and clogged with the bloated & hacked body parts of women and children?  You call yourself a feminist and yet you remained silent while hundreds of thousands of black women, young and old, were raped and mutilated.  Why did you remain silent?
4. Do you believe your husband’s apologies are enough given that over 800,000 blacks lost their lives on his watch?  Recent reports indicate your husband and V.P. Gore may have been aware as early as week three that a horrific genocide was happening, but did not acknowledge it publicly. 
5. By week three, the Hutus had slaughtered over 100,000 Tutsis.  When did you begin to think it was genocide?  If early on, why not speak out publicly to save lives?  If not until later, why should America trust you to be President if you failed to see such a significant human disaster was unfolding and that urgent action was needed? 

I know these questions are a little rough but the subject matter is rough.  I truly believe journalists have a solemn obligation to hold leaders accountable, even if questions are difficult.

Rush Asked on Clinton/Rwanda

On Friday, May 9, 2008, I finally got through to Rush as a caller on "Open Line Friday".  I've been trying to get through to Rush for many years.  Today, I wanted to ask him where is the outrage from black leaders about how the Clintons handled the Rwanda Genocide.  Below is a transcript, picture and background link copy and pasted off his web site at:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_050908/content/01125115.guest.html

RUSH: Matt in Jericho, Vermont. We go back to the phones here.  You're next.  Welcome, sir.  Great to have you here.
CALLER:  Hi, Rush.  I'm a big fan.  Not of your singing, but the other stuff.
RUSH:  Yeah, well, you know, cut me some slack on that.  You know I'm deaf.
CALLER:  Okay.  I had a question a little off topic.  After the Holocaust, we said never again.  In 1994, over 800,000 blacks were butchered to death in the Rwanda genocide, and the Clintons did nothing.  Now the Clintons want back in the White House, and here's my question.  We saw the outrage (transcript error:  I actually said, "We were all outraged, ...) , but where is the outrage of African-American leaders like Obama, Sharpton, Clyburn, even Reverend Wright?  The Clintons did nothing about the worst genocide in African history, and not a peep out of all those sermons, nothing.  Why do you think that is?
RUSH:  This is an excellent question.
CALLER:  Thank you.
RUSH:  It is an excellent question.  In the first place you have to understand Clinton was busy at the time saving Haiti.  He sent Colin Powell down there and we got rid of Jean-Bertrand Aristide.  Here's the real answer to this, because I get questions about other such confusing incidents as well, and the answer is that liberals are liberals first, and they're whatever else they are second, be they Jewish, be they black, be they feminists, they're liberals first.  So what did we have in the circumstances with Rwanda?  We had Bill Clinton in the White House.  Who was Bill Clinton?  Toni Morrison called him the first black president.  She since, by the way, retracted that.  She's for Obama now.  She retracted it.  She said, (paraphrasing) "Nah-nah, I didn't mean he was black, just the way he was perceived guilty before any evidence was in, was the same thing that happens to my brothers in the soul community, and that's why he was the first black president, but he was never a black guy like Obama."  She's sort of taken it back, but back then he was the first black president.  And he surrounded himself with the Reverend Jackson and all these sort of people, but he was a liberal.
He was a Democrat president, and he was being besieged by Ken Starr, the sex fiend; being besieged by me, responsible for Oklahoma City, he said; besieged by a number of enemies, and the liberals circled the wagons around him.  Now, I'm not trying to be flippant with you, Matt.  This is how this works.  The black population in this country was outraged at Ronald Reagan over what was going on in South Africa with apartheid, but they're going to support a Democrat president, they're gonna circle the wagons, especially when he's under siege because of problems of his own making.  Clinton squared it all, when it was all over, and after the genocide, he bit the lower lip, and he apologized and he admitted that he coulda done more.  And they melted, their hearts melted.  At least Bill Clinton took responsibility.  He was a big man.  At least Bill Clinton admitted a mistake.  I'm not being flippant with this answer.  That is precisely how he was able to get away with it.  It's why today Obama doesn't bring it up.  It's why Sharpton, Jackson, don't bring it up.  Liberals are liberals first wherever you find them.

END TRANSCRIPT

Read the Background Material...

• UK Guardian: US Chose to Ignore Rwandan Genocide.
Classified Papers Show Clinton was Aware of 'Final Solution' to Eliminate Tutsis - 03.31.04

Rush Defends Clinton on Rwanda

I called Rush Limbaugh on Friday about Rwanda. You can read the transcript and listen to the audio here:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_050908/content/01125115.guest.html

I was a first time caller and a little nervous talking to a man I’ve admired for most of my adult life, and still do.

As such, I did not engage him about some of the things he said that were a little off the mark.  Rush's overall answer was fine but he made a couple mistakes in his comments & I know he'll want to correct the record as soon as practical.

Rush's 1^st mistake: “Clinton was busy at the time saving Haiti.” 

Even if the Haiti intervention happened during the genocide (Apr-Jul, 2004), the US military had the capacity to return Aristide to power and intervene in Rwanda.  Bush proved this later when he fought two wars (Iraq & Afghanistan) with over 400,000 troops deployed.  Clinton himself estimated in 2003 that he would only have needed 5,000 – 10,000 troops to “save half of those killed in Rwanda”

So, Haiti is not a legitimate excuse. Christopher Hutchens suggested that Hillary asked Bill not to intervene in Bosnia, as he had promised he would in the 1992 campaign to Elie Wiezel, because a messy intervention might jeopardize her health care reforms. Hutchens estimates that about 250,000 died before Clinton finally intervened in his second term. I believe this also explains why the Clintons abandoned Rwanda. The Clintons did not want another Somalia. The Hutu commanders in Rwanda knew about Clinton's mistake in Somalia and knew if they killed a few soldiers the West would leave and not come back. They were right.

Rush's 2^nd mistake:   “Clinton squared it all …took responsibility.  He was a big man.  At least Bill Clinton admitted a mistake”.

Clinton's apologies on Rwanda were late (in 1998 - well after the 1996 Presidential Election) and, well, Clintonesque.  He suggested he was not fully aware of the genocide and he wished he could have done more. 

    

In 2004, documents were released that show Bill Clinton, and Vice-President Al Gore, were kept well-informed of events in Rwanda and, in fact, began using the term “genocide” privately within 3 weeks (150,000 dead) but chose not to get involved, or allow others to send rescue teams (that would embarrass us) until three months later – after 800,000 had died.

Even if he really apologized – that doesn’t “square it all”. No apology or singing in black churches or African charity work can make up for letting 800,000 humans die needlessly.

So, given these facts – why is Rush sticking up for the Clintons? Is this part of Operation Chaos?

The Clinton /Rwanda controversy is rich with conservative talk radio material about liberal hypocrisy:

1. Hundreds of thousands of black women, young and old were raped and mutilated. Where were the feminists then? Why do they support Hillary now?
2. Over 800,000 Africans were butchered to death? We should all be outraged but why is there not outrage from African-Americans like Obama, Sharpton, Clyburn, Jackson, etc? Hours and hours about all the terrible things whites have done to blacks in Rev Wright sermons and nothing about Rwanda?
3. Democrats and their activist groups are outraged about 4000 dead soldiers – “Bush lied, they died”. Of course, we should honor every soldier’s sacrifice but they died fighting a noble cause. The victims of the Rwanda Genocide were largely innocent – many women and children. So many were slaughtered that the Kagera River ran red with blood and clogged in some places because of the volume of bloated & hacked body parts. Democrats are outraged about 4000 soldiers who died fighting a noble cause but not a peep about 800,000 innocent people are butchered to death at a murder rate 5 times the Holocaust?

I believe the Clintons made a political calculation that, in the end, no one, not even African-Americans, will care that America let 800,000 Africans die needlessly, horribly.

They were right.