Hey Glenn - Choose McCain.

I heard Glenn Beck disparage McCain this morning, again, understandably, and thought I'd let him know I've had a change of heart in the last couple weeks.

Here's my email:

Glenn,

I heard you say this morning that McCain may not be much better than Barack. I understand your anger and disgust about McCain. I’m a big Romney supporter (see vermonters4mitt.WordPress.com) and saw how McCain sucker punched Romney down in Florida to win that primary and the nomination. I was mad as anybody.

However, we’re in the general now and the choice is no longer between McCain and Romney (the best presidential candidate in 20 years), the choice is between McCain and Obama (the worst candidate in 20 yrs - imagine Jimmy Carter with Soros funding).

So the choice is:

McCain vs. Obama

• A war vet vs. a community organizer
• Winning in Iraq vs. pulling out in defeat (meaning our soldiers died in vain).
• Offshore drilling to lower gas prices & save our economy vs. hoping alternatives work out someday and destroying the economy to “teach us to conserve more”.
• A Supreme Court that affirms the right to bear arms vs. a court that bans handguns.
• A President that will keep radio waves free vs. a President that will usher in the “Fairness Doctrine”
• A President with 50 years of Navy/Congress experience to draw on in an international crisis vs. a President with 4 years of Congressional experience – 2 years spent campaigning for President.
• A President that has never asked for earmarks and will never sign a bill with earmarks vs. a President that will use the earmark process for four years to make the country “more fair”.
• A direct refundable tax credit - effectively cash - of $5,000 for truly portable health insurance vs. a “new public plan” that will offer coverage to all 47 million uninsured, including 12 million illegals.

Still think there’s little difference?

Just last weekend, I decided to follow Mitt’s lead and start supporting McCain overtly. I thought I would feel dirty but it feels good. I’m in the game. I’ve taken a side.

We’re never given a perfect or even a good choice for President. The point is it’s a choice between two people not a choice between a perfect option and an imperfect one.

In 2008, the choice is between a very flawed war hero named McCain against a very liberal Soros-backed empty-suit named Obama.

I’m choosing McCain.

Join me. It’ll be fun.

Thanks…Matt

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

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.