Throw Lying Dems Out!

When they announced Harry Reid and Chris Dodd were going to hold a press conference, I turned to my wife and said, "I'm going to count the lies on my fingers while they speak".  I got to seven and turned the TV off.  I'm really angry.

I HATE CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS!

They lie and lie and lie.  Now I found out they wanted 20% of any profits given to groups like ACORN!!  I hate that they have any say in this rescue plan.

Is there any way we can just flush Congress down the drain and start over with a special election?

Is there a lever on the side somewhere? 

In other words, term limits effective immediately.  It could be like college football where every year the seniors retire and a group of fresh faces and freshmen (women too!) come to Washington. 

Barring that, given that this is largely a Democrat mess, any Rescue Plan must eliminate the bad acts that caused the crisis and hold accountable those culpable:

1. No money for ACORN
2. Five year phase out of all the substandard lending that got us in this mess - all CRA, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac loans.
3. Require Joint House & Senate hearings to document the role of those responsible for pushing substandard loans (Barney Frank, Bill Clinton, Chris Dodd, Franklin Raines, Bob Rubin, etc..)
4. Require Joint investigations into the vast amounts of money given to leading Democrats (Dodd, Obama are #1 and #2 recipients) and the probable quid pro quo for increased GSE substandard loans for their contributors. 
5. Term limits, effective immediately - the President is limited to two terms - limit Senators to two terms (12 years) and Representatives to four terms (8 years). 

Unless you take concrete steps to stop these problems, why should voters believe the rescue plan will work?

I will not play the moral equivalence game by throwing up my hands and saying - they're all corrupt!  They're not.  Yes, I know McCain and other Republicans took some money from GSEs but they clearly did not push legislation on their behalf - All Republicans supported Bush's efforts to reform these institutions back in 2005 - all Democrats were opposed.

If you blame everybody, you really let the worst offenders off the hook. 

Without Clinton and the Democrats pushing these loans in the 1990s, substandard loans would have never increased five fold, from $200 billion to over $1 trillion, and brought our financial markets to their knees. 

Throw the bums out!

Democrat's $1 Trillion Mistake

So, who's to blame for the current mortgage mess?  If you believe the current media narrative, capitalism itself is to blame.  Not content to blame just the GOP or Bush, Democrats are going after the big prize - the conservative ideology that advocates free markets.  

Progressive socialists like Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders are absolutely giddy about this crisis.  This affords them the perfect opportunity to shove the word FAILURE in the face of any conservative that ever advocated for de-regulation, including John McCain. 

Here's Obama declaring the mortgage mess is the "Final Verdict" that free markets have failed:

Just a month ago, Democrats were worried that American voters might be souring on their Progressive/socialist agenda like the French and Germans did when they recently elected pro-U.S., pro-market leaders like Sarkozy and Merkel, respectively.  U.S. voters were beginning to blame Democrats for the struggling economy when they saw Democrats clinging to their extreme environmentalism and denying even a vote on lifting the ban on offshore drilling. 

This anti-democratic posture by Democrats provided the GOP a chance to blame Democrats for the bad economy.

What a difference a month makes. 

Now, capitalism itself is on trial and it's losing badly.  I, for one, will stand up and defend free markets and using the Audacity of Reason, remind voters of the facts:

1. In 1977, Democrat President Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA).  This act forced banks to "provide credit, including home ownership opportunities to under-served populations".
2. In 1993, Democrat Bill Clinton asked his Treasury Secretary to come up with reforms to increase the expand the CRA.
3. In 1997, Democrat Bill Clinton increased the market share of these CRA loans from almost zero to almost 15%.  Fannie's and Freddie's combined portfolios went from about $200 billion to over $1 trillion during Clinton's term in office - a five fold increase. 
4. In 2005, Bush attempted to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs) but he was rejected along party lines despite warnings by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. 

I urge everyone to read all of Chairman Greenspan's Senate testimony on April 6, 2005, but I'll include his prescient conclusion below:

"Without restrictions on the size of GSE balance sheets, we put at risk our ability to preserve safe and sound financial markets in the United States, a key ingredient of support for homeownership."

Still, Bush was President.  Why didn't he do more?  Bush's #1 priority, after 9/11, was keeping U.S. safe.  Because Democrats chose to undermine the War on Terror and the Iraq War, Bush had to sacrifice other priorities to win support from Democrats to get national security legislation passed and keep us safe.  Had Democrats chose to support the President on national security matters, as was the custom in years past, we would have had real changes at Fannie and Freddie to limit the risk to our overall economy. 

Why did Clinton, back in 1993, seek to force banks to lend to people that our banks would not have otherwise lent money to?  Here's how Clinton's Comptroller, Gene Ludwig, described the basis for how the Clinton team decided to "reform the CRA":

"Before we made a single decision on proposing reform, we turned to the people to ask what the people thought what the people needed. We walked through South Central Los Angeles, in a predominantly minority neighborhood in New York City to see with our own eyes and to listen with our own ears to what should be done. We talked with representatives of the Navajo Nation; to bankers, large and small banks, inclusive; to poor people in rural North Carolina and elsewhere. (What) we saw and what we heard shaped this reform package."

How did the Clinton seek to enforce compliance with the CRA?  In 1993, Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen explains here:

"In a nutshell, what we're proposing to do is to make it easier for lenders to show how they're complying with the Community Reinvestment Act. ...the changes we're proposing are important because banks now have a very clear, quantitative standard by which their compliance can be judged. And that is very important to banks when it comes to ask regulators to approve mergers, new branches and the like."

Under Bill Clinton and a Democratic Congress, the CRA was reborn and inserted into the very fabric of our financial markets.  Yes, some institutions were happy to make money doing CRA loans but they would not have made them if the Clinton Administration hadn't forced them to in order to get new branches and mergers approved.  How do I know that?  Because before Clinton, CRA loans were almost non-existent. 

This is a $1 trillion mistake by the Democrats that has finally come home to roost

Now, there is a $700 billion plan to bailout financial institutions that are having a hard time pricing all the bad CRA mortgage-related assets on their balance sheets.  It could cost a $1 trillion or more.  Whatever the cost, it's not a failure of free markets or capitalism - it is a failure of the "mixed economy" that Ayn Rand warned about 40 years ago.

It is the affirmative action / socialist ideology that Democrats want to shove down your throat with stealth and guilt all wrapped up in the purposely ambiguous euphemism "Change We Need".

Yes, substandard lending had some GOP support along the way but make no mistake - it would have never happened if Republicans were in charge.  Conservatives advocate smaller government and merit-based financial decisions.  Liberals advocate for more government and financial decisions based on "fairly spreading the wealth".  For 12 years, during Reagan and Bush 41, the CRA was meaningless. 

If the banks and Wall Street were so greedy, why didn't they pursue substandard lending before Clinton? 

Because it did not make business sense - they would have lost money.  Only after the Clinton Administration "made it easier" to prove compliance with the CRA and back up the loans with implicit guarantees from Fannie and Freddie, did private banks jump on board.  Banks were asked to demonstrate they were doing "their share" of substandard lending to minorities or else the feds would not approve mergers or new branches. 

Of course, it was a mistake to package these loans into financial instruments traded around the world but can you really blame a German or Japanese bank for buying a product that had the allure of "U.S. Mortgage Obligations"?  It probably never occurred to the German banker to ask if some of the mortgages were made without verification of income???

Congress did everything it could to grow Fannie, Freddie and CRA loans.  This was a whopper of a mistake.  A $1 trillion mistake by Clinton and the Democrats.  The question is will the public hold them accountable or believe Obama's propaganda that evil-unregulated-free-markets is to blame for this mess? 

We'll see November 4, 2008.

Debunk the "Booming Clinton Economy" Myth

Last night, I hosted a "McCain Nation" event - a house party, of sorts, for conservatives.  Living in the state with more Obama supporters per person than any other (Vermont), I appreciate any occasion to meet and greet people who don't want feel warm and fuzzy about impeaching President Bush.

During the evening, we participated in a conference call, with over 15,000 McCain activists, hosted by Cindy McCain, Charlie Black (McCain's Chief Campaign Adviser), and "special guest" Rudy Giuliani.   Cindy McCain urged women to support John McCain and said a few words about how inspired she was by women in Rwanda on a recent trip there. 

Then Charlie Black spoke about campaign strategy.  They allowed a few questions, so I called in.  Incredibly, I was the fourth caller and said this:

Thank you, Cindy McCain, for your comments about the women of Rwanda.  After all they've been through, they certainly deserve all the support we can give them (see Justice 4 Rwanda). 

At their upcoming convention, Democrats will make lots of speeches pointing to the "booming Clinton economy of the 1990s" as proof that Democrats can be trusted with the economy.

The problem is the booming 1990s economy began March 1991, 22 months before Clinton took office. 

Like Obama, Clinton promised "Change" during his 1992 campaign for President.  However, later, after the country saw what kind of change Clinton had in mind, voters overwhelmingly rejected Clinton's policies by electing, for the 1st time in 40 years, a Republican majority in Congress that kept taxes and spending down and forced Clinton to balance the federal budget.

So the credit for the "booming 1990s economy" really belongs to Bush 41 and the '94 Republicans. 

So, my question is this:  Will the McCain Campaign debunk the myth of the "booming Clinton economy" so Obama and the Democrats can't take credit for it anymore?

Charlie Black agreed with my analysis.  I was thrilled!  Perhaps he was just flattering a supporter, in front of 15,000 other supporters, but it was thrilling to offer a senior McCain advisor, directly, my advice for taking away the economy, as an issue, from the Democrats in the General Election.  (I wonder if Mitt Romney was listening - our choice for McCain's VP!)

Anyway, Mr. Black went on to say that the '94 Republicans quickly entered into a balanced budget agreement, with the then-weakened Clinton, to fulfill their promises in the Contract with America, and that that agreement laid the groundwork for historic budget surpluses in the late 1990s.  He also said that he had recently heard Obama's surrogates on TV talking about how great the Clinton years were for the economy and the country.   

Clinton didn't create 22 million jobs - the booming economy that he inherited from Bush 41 and Reagan did.

I hope and pray that I've planted a seed that will encourage McCain campaign strategists to come up with an ad, or a major speech, that will debunk the booming-Clinton-economy myth and put the 1990s in proper perspective.  Many feel a President doesn't have much influence anyway on a $13 trillion dollar economy.  I'm sure Microsoft, Amazon, Yahoo, Cisco and other great American companies feel they had a bigger influence on 1990s economy. 

Nevertheless, President Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and hundreds of other Democrat leaders, pundits and supporters in the media often boast how "magnificent Clinton was on the economy", how "Clinton created 22 million new jobs", that the economy is a glorious part of his legacy and that evil Bush came along and ruined all the good work the Democrats had done in the '90s.

These are all lies that need to be confronted & corrected. 

So, to the extent that any political leader can take credit for increasing the U.S. GDP and the resulting job growth, it is the pro-growth policies of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush that kept the 1990-91 recession shallow & short - in effect extending the booming Reagan economy into the 1990s.  Credit the 1994 Republicans for forcing Clinton to keep taxes and spending low and balancing the federal budget - all things that tend to help an economy.  One must also give some credit to Ross Perot for making federal budget deficits a big focus of the 1992 and 1994 campaigns.  Whatever you think of Ross Perot, he made it "sexy" again to demand fiscal responsibility from our elected officials.   

In any event, the credit does not belong to the Clintons.

Democrats, if they're to be honest, must use the Carter economy for guidance on what an Obama economy might look like.   Like Carter, Obama will, if elected, have both houses of Congress led by Democrats.  Like Carter, Obama's energy plan is to make our own oil companies the enemy, to seize their "excess" windfall profits, to implement new taxes on oil & gas (aren't they expensive enough already?) - everything except what's needed most:  lifting the ban on offshore (OCS) and ANWR drilling effective immediately.

Like Carter, Obama's economy will be a disaster.

National Media Must Diversify

I found this McCain video of how much the media is in the tank for Obama:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfogMFL7UJo

and left this comment:

All kidding aside, the media needs to diversify itself. It may take years of hiring conservatives but it's important for the country and the world.

It's dangerous to have our national media so one sided.

For example, in 1994 a very charming Bill Clinton managed to convince the world that Hutus killing 50,000 Tutsis a week was not genocide and so he would not intervene.

Over 800,000 humans were butchered to death because the liberal media gave the liberal President a pass.

Diversify

It already got this response from 3swelldogs:

EXCELLENT point. we should have gone in there...and the shame of it was that it wouldn't have taken much at all to clear that up.

Hillary's lost her right to be heard.

7-24-08  UPDATE!

The website below, virginiadem.wordpress.com, actually allowed my comment to post, only to remove it later.  Everything I said, was factually true, which just goes to show you that the real fascism in America is on the left.  They love free speech as long as it's only and exactly what they want to hear.  Anything else and they will shut it down, erase it, deny it or otherwise mitigate it. 

Obama's speech today in Berlin reminded us of another fascist who gave speeches to hundreds of thousands in Berlin and his party made sure no criticism of him or his party was allowed in public.

Please let this web site know how you feel about websites that remove comments they don't agree with.  I completely understand removing spam or comments that are factually wrong or personally hurtful - mine were none of the above - they were just critical of the Clintons and the Democrats.

Shame on you Democrats!!!

*****************

I came across more Hillary words:

http://virginiadem.wordpress.com/2008/07/14/republicans-should-apologize-hillary-clinton-finds-her-voice-again-at-aft-convention/#comment-1204.

and I said this on 7-14-08:

More tired old words from the woman who, long ago, lost her right to be heard.

In 1994, 800,000 blacks were butchered to death during the Rwanda Genocide and Bill Clinton did nothing. He had a UN obligation to intervene and he just said no.

Tens of thousands of woman, young and old were raped and mutilated and Hillary Clinton said nothing.

Wouldn’t it have been great if she had found her voice for them? I wonder how many children she could have saved?

Shame on the Clintons and shame on the Democrats for looking the other way because one of their own was in charge!

At least this web-site allows my comments to be posted without "moderation".

I'm getting cynical.

Obama folk, rightly, won't pay for Hillary's hit-job

I came across this gem of a story that describes how Obama supporters are reluctant to give cash to retire Hillary's campaign's debt when a good chunk of it was run up attacking Obama after she had no chance of winning.  I remember Hillary running ads in Montana and saying to my wife how odd that she's spending money this late in the race.  Now she wants Obama folk to pay those bills?

Anyway, here's the link:

http://www.againsthillary.com/2008/07/09/bad-blood-obama-donors-arent-rushing-to-aid-clinton/#comment-8633

...and here's my comment that, as of 1:41pm 7-9-08, was awaiting moderation.  We'll see if it posts.

How strange that the winner of a contest, any contest, pays off the debts of the loser?

Hillary lost this race months ago. Obama had a big lead over McCain. Rather than put her party ahead of her personal ambitions, as Mitt Romney did, she selfishly continues campaigning, against overwhelming mathematical odds, running up debt, gathering up delegates, buying ads and spreading rumors - anything that might convince America Obama is unelectable - a Hillary-fulfilling prophecy.

Now, Obama’s been damaged badly by Hillary’s hammer and Hillary wants Obama’s supporters to pay for the hammer. If they had an ounce of integrity they would not ask for the cash. If they had an ounce of integrity, they would have quit the race and not stayed in to bloody up Obama. Unfortunately, the Clintons have no integrity.

How do I know?

In 1948, the US promised the world, “Never again!” after 6 million Jews were murdered during Holocaust. In 1994, Hutus killed 50,000 Tutsis a week during the Rwanda Genocide - an obvious genocide the US must respond to. But Clinton did not respond. They managed to convince the world it wasn’t really genocide until over 800,000 had been butchered to death.

If the Clinton’s had any integrity, they would have taken action to stop the killing of almost a million people. They didn’t, so they don’t.

 

 

Hillary owes more than you think

Hillary's campaign debt is rising and that's not all she owes. 

Today, I read in the BitsBlog that the June 22, 2008 -NY Post- is reporting that:

"New campaign-finance filings reveal Clinton has even more debt than previously reported, while Obama’s fund-raising has stalled.  

He pulled in $22 million in May - a sharp drop from the $30 million to $55 million he got in each of the prior three months.

And presumptive Republican nominee John McCain came up almost even with his Democratic rival, taking in $21 million last month.

The new reports show Clinton’s debt has risen to $22.5 million - $12 million of which is in personal loans she poured into her campaign - and she reported only $3 million in available cash. More debt is expected to be reported in the coming weeks.

...an Obama spokesman said there's no specific plan to rescue Clinton from her debt.  Discussions so far "have focused more on what these two can do to bring the party together and move it forward than it has on these logistical details," Obama communications director Robert Gibbs said last week. "

Of course, this story has some interesting political and ethical subplots.  Isn't it interesting that Obama's fundraising dropped off so sharply in May, almost in half, from the previous months, even though his race with Hillary was heating up. 

Interesting also that McCain almost matched him in May, largely as a result of fundraising done with Bush at Romney events in Salt Lake City and at Romney's vacation home in Park City, Utah - and no one is reporting that.  No one is talking about how much Romney raised for McCain.

Another interesting subplot in the NY Post story is the pleading by Clinton folk that Obama pay off her debt and the statement by an Obama spokesperson that they have no such intentions - good for them!

Anyway, as interesting as the political and ethical dilemmas, I was first struck by the moral one.  Whenever anyone talks about Hillary owing anything, I first think of what she and Bill owe that they can't pay back - the victims of the Rwanda Genocide their lives back.  I left this comment at the BitsBlog:

"Hillary owes more than $22 million dollars.

She and Bill owe Africa, and the nation of Rwanda, a lot more than that.

You see back in 1994, over 800,000 blacks were butchered to death during the Rwanda Genocide. Back in 1948, the US promised “Never again” would we allow an entire people to be targeted for extinction.

Yet Hutus killed 50,000 Tutsis each week and Bill did nothing. Tens of thousands of women, young and old, were raped and mutilated and Hillary said nothing.

Hillary owes a lot more than $22 million.

No amount of singing in black churches or donating to African charities will bring back 800,000 lives or make up for the injustice of doing nothing during Africa’s worst genocide ever.

n’est pas?"

 

 

I'd like to write a blog soon called "The Clintons are Morally Bankrupt" that logically puts together, side by side, the huge debt they owe for abandoning Rwanda next to all the things they've done that they think are making up for it and add all the things they possibly could do during the rest of their lives and it should become very clear - they're deep in debt, can never get out and should file for moral bankruptcy, very soon, immediately. 

Finally, Some Justice 4 Rwanda.

I subscribe to the HillaryClintondotcom on YouTube - just to keep an eye on things.  Well, I got this gem of a video yesterday, thanking me for...

I did not even finish the video (I never can stomach more than a minute or two of a Hillary video).  I just like to see if they finally let me leave comments.  You see, Hillary's campaign has a policy of not allowing comments she doesn't like to be posted on her YouTube videos.  I guess her staff reviews each one and posts it (or not) depending on if they like the content.  The net result is lots of glowing compliments of Hillary and nothing else.  It's a little like that movie the Stepford Wives or Pleasantville.  Ironic that hippie democrat types think conservatives are fascists who strictly regulate expression but the reverse is actually true.  Giuliani, Mitt, McCain, Thompson, Huckabee all had open comments on their YouTube videos during the GOP primary.  You know this because there was some nasty critical comments of each candidate mixed in with lots of "Go Ron Paul!" comments.  Not so for Hillary.  I don't know about Obama - I'll go check it out.

Anyway, I left the comment below to make the Hillary staffer reading it think a little bit about the person they're supporting.  Someday, I'd like to get the MSM to write about this but until then, your my biggest audience!

Here's my comment:

Finally.

Justice 4 Rwanda.

Over 14 years ago. the Clintons let 800,000 Africans die needlessly - butchered in the Rwanda Genocide after America had promised "Never Again".

Now, it is with sweet and just irony that an African-American has ended the White House dreams of the couple who did nothing about Africa's worst genocide ever.

How ironic Hillary "the feminist" never spoke out while tens of thousands of women, young and old, were raped and mutilated.

May God forgive her.

I submitted it and the response was, "Comment Pending Approval!"  just like that, with the exclamation mark - like I'm supposed to be excited it's pending approval instead of just being posted like 95% of all other YouTube comments.

I'll let you know if it gets approved.  Don't wait up too long :-)

UPDATE:  June 7, 2008

Nope - still no posting of my comment 24 hours later.  You can check yourself @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8-Bkbre_7A

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.

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.