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 1st 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 2nd 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:
- Hundreds of thousands of black women, young and old were raped and mutilated. Where were the feminists then? Why do they support Hillary now?
- 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?
- 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.
RUSH: This is an excellent question. 
Posts
