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.

Let's Hear It, Hillary.

Today, Barack gave an historic speech on race.

Now, Hillary owes us a speech on genocide.

Back in 1994, for 100 days, over 800,000 blacks were butchered to death during the Rwanda Genocide. Bill did nothing.

Thousands of black women, young and old, were raped and mutilated. Hillary said nothing.

So many bodies were dumped in the Kagera River that it ran red with blood and narrow parts clogged with bloated & hacked body parts. Clinton denied it was genocide.

Let's hear it, Hillary.

It Matters How The Clintons Lose.

An open letter to Obama supporters in my home state of Vermont:

Obama folk,

Please – don’t abandon the victims of the Rwanda Genocide again.

In 1994, the U.S., led by Clinton, had a UN obligation to intervene.  Clinton avoided our obligation by denying it was genocide – even though Hutus were killing 56,000 Tutsis each week – a murder rate 5 times the Holocaust.  Incredibly, the media, Democrats, even African-American leaders, all trusted Clinton and abandoned Rwanda.

At least Bush is calling the crisis in Darfur what it is – genocide.

    

If we can hold Bush responsible for not intervening in Darfur (we do), then we must hold Clinton responsible for what happened in Rwanda:

      

Don’t abandon Rwanda a second time by keeping silent about it in a 2008 Presidential Campaign between Obama and one of the 1994 leaders.  We’re not talking about infidelity – this is about genocide.  It’s not a personal attack.  It’s about human rights and U.S. foreign policy - it’s very serious. 

We’re all humans and we care about other humans, don’t we?  If you can’t care about 800,000 dying needlessly than what do you care about?   If remaining silent about a genocide is winning with dignity, I’d rather lose my dignity, lose the election and speak out – wouldn’t you?

Fortunately, as Rubin Bennett so ably pointed out, Obama’s on track to win the nomination anyway.  So why bring up Rwanda?

It matters how the Clintons lose.

If they’re seen as losing to the rock star first African-American Obama phenomenon, we win the election and little else.

If Clinton loses, in part, because America held them responsible for abandoning Rwanda – we win the election, earn a little more respect in the world, especially in Africa, and we take a step towards healing the wounds in our soul from 1994.

Can Obama raise this issue tactfully?  Yes he can!

Perhaps his campaign can produce a counter to the 3am ad that says, "In 1994, the phone rang at 3am for 100 days in a row.  It was the victims of the Rwanda Genocide.  The Clintons denied it was ringing while 800,000 blacks were butchered to death.".

OK, maybe Obama's team can come up with something more gentle, but you get the point. 

This small amount of justice for Rwanda may again give hope to African children and pride for American children.

Obama or the Liar John McCain

 
The Yes We Can video is special and not just because...

   it inspired me in the same way will.i.am was.

You see, Justice for Rwanda is almost at hand…

   and its right the vanquisher is an African-American

Someday, soon, Obama will win the nomination…

   ending Clinton’s politics of personal destruction.

We can sense the end of the Clinton era...

   and know that will mean a better America.

However, we'll wake up sober the next day...

   and know returning without success is the wrong way.

Leaving Iraq before the mission's done…

   will mean suffering for millions and honor for none.

By helping young Arabs choose democracy over tyranny…

   we keep our promise to Iraq and America safe and free

I pray that God will help Barack...

   change course and offer success for US in Iraq.

Otherwise, I'll have to endure some pain...

   and hold my nose...

   while voting...

   for the liar John McCain.

 

                Thank you Florida!  Thank you Fox News!  Not!