Oh My
So, documents suggest that Annan and Clinton knew about the Rwandan genocide. Now, I know Annan is pretty much a total bastard, but Clinton? Geez.
14 Responses to “Oh My”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
April 2nd, 2004 at 9:53 am
What is this crazy talk? I knew about the Rwanadan genocide. Everyone knew about the Rwanadan genocide. No one did anything about it.
If you have a chance, catch the Frontline episode about it — ran for the first time last night — and many of our favorite folks come out looking like real dipshits.
April 2nd, 2004 at 1:11 pm
Thanks for the link!
Andrew: Many people denied knowing about it until after it was too late to do anything, but they were lying.
April 2nd, 2004 at 1:26 pm
Sigh
That line about Annan is idiotic in the extreme. The UN has no standing army. Annan couldn’t get troops form the sounding nations, aside form the fact that they are not terribly effective troops, because almost every nation had a stake in the Rwandan mess. That meant he had to reply upon Western governments who were reluctant to intervene. That meant he had two choices — go public or not. If he went public, the press might be enough to overcome governmental reluctance. But considering the slow reaction to the very well covered Yugoslavian genocide, that couldn’t have looked very good. And if he did go public and the public pressure was not enough, he would have irritated the very people he depended upon for troops to stop the genocide — and any other genocide that might happen in the future. Thats a hell of a risk. Maybe he should have taken it, I don’t know. But to pretend that the decisions somehow made Anna a terrible bastard is ridiculous. I guess I have to add “United Nations” to the list of subjects where your biases get in the way of your brain. Only if Annan had a standing army would your compliant be justified. Otherwise, its just reflexive, knee jerk and UN bashing devoid of any intellectual reasoning.
As for Clinton. Yep, he fscked the Rwanda situation up badly. Don’t think anyone was arguing that, and I don’t think anyone –outside the Admins officials in question — ever argued that they didn’t know enough to act. Its kinda like only die-in-the-wool kool-aide drinking dittoheads still think Saddam had WMDS or connectiosn to al-Queda. Of course, since you are passing judgement around, one wonders why you still praise one George W. Bush, who said this:
in 2000, well after the full extent of the horror was known. Guess your boy George must be a bastard too, huh? Or does your bias against the UN extend so far that your problem not the lack of intervention but the fact that Clinton would have used the UN if he had intervened?
April 2nd, 2004 at 1:45 pm
I guess I have to add “United Nations” to the list of subjects where your biases get in the way of your brain.
Heh! Pot, kettle, file away for future use.
So, you contend that his efforts at saving face justify 500,000 dead Rwandans?
As for your George Bush comment, just on my main page here I did a find for Bush. Couldn’t find a lick of praise. And if roles were reversed and bush failed to intervene in Rwanda, I’d be crtitical of him too.
Then I searched for instances of Bush on the whole site:
https://saysuncle.com/cgi-bin/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=1&search=Bush
Last praise for bush (August 2003):
https://saysuncle.com/archives/000862.html
So, i’m not quite the bush cheering section. I’m not even planning on voting for him.
April 2nd, 2004 at 1:46 pm
Okay
I just reread that comment. I need to apologize for the tone. I was very angry. I still think that you have accused Annan of doing something truly horrible without what I consider justification or evidence, but I let me anger at that get in the way of my decency. For that, I am sorry.
April 2nd, 2004 at 2:00 pm
“So, i’m not quite the bush cheering section”
Maybe not by name, but you excused the Plame thing, and you still go otta your way to try an find links between Saddam and al-Queda, etc,etc,etc. You certainly seem to stand up for him quite a bit, even when the evidence doesn’t back you up, whether you name him or not.
And you didn’t answer my comments about Annan. unless this was it:
“So, you contend that his efforts at saving face justify 500,000 dead Rwandans”
Go back and read those comments again. Anna did not have a standing army, he could do nothing without western help, and he had to best choose how to get that help form governments who did not want to help. Maybe he chose wrong, but to pretended that he was trying to save face or unconcerned is bullsh*t. The plain facts of the situation obviously don’t bear that contention out.
April 2nd, 2004 at 2:26 pm
And if he did go public and the public pressure was not enough, he would have irritated the very people he depended upon for troops to stop the genocide
Sounds like saving political face to me. And yes, his inaction had results.
I never excused the plame thing and only blogged about it once (in passing) to my knowledge. Searched my site for plame and CIA agent and got one entry indirectly referencing plame:
https://saysuncle.com/archives/001116.html
Searched your site in case i opined there:
http://www.leanleft.com/archives/001757.html
Nope, no excuses for the plame thing that i can find or recall. In fact at resonance
http://www.brianarner.com/weblog/archives/000081.html
I call the allegations damning
And there is enough evidence to suggest al qaeda has ties to iraq (though not the extensive ties that the current administration alleges). But I guess I have to add “Iraq and Al Qaeda” to the list of subjects where your biases get in the way of your brain. :^)
April 2nd, 2004 at 3:40 pm
“…but I let me anger at that get in the way of my decency”
That could be the new motto of either the Democratic or Republican Parties…
April 2nd, 2004 at 3:45 pm
“Sounds like saving political face to me”
WHAT????
Trying to preserve his abality to get troops to stop genocide is saving face! That definition boggles the mind. It is arguable that the correct thing would have been to go public, but he risked losing, and never being able to stop the genocide. That is not an easy decision, and choosing worng is not evidence of callouness or political posturing.
“And there is enough evidence to suggest al qaeda has ties to iraq”
Only in Republican dream land, mate. There is as close to absolute zero as you can get. Thats whay “Iraq and al-queda” was already on that list for you 🙂
And in that link yu are dimissing the Plame thing as politics as usual in the main post. However, you do clarify it in the comments, and thats good enough. I was wrong about you and the Plame thing, and I apologize.
April 2nd, 2004 at 3:49 pm
I have given you links to the al qaeda/iraq thing before. It’s a futile exercise that I’ll not duplicate.
Why did annan not go public? Seriously. So he wouldn’t lose his political pull?
April 2nd, 2004 at 4:45 pm
I have given you links to the al qaeda/iraq thing before.
Yep, and you’ve ignored the fact that virtually all of them are bunk. 🙂
April 2nd, 2004 at 4:50 pm
No, they’re not.
April 2nd, 2004 at 4:58 pm
SU
More to the point, you’ve ignored the fact that I have systematically shot each of the links you’ve given me down 🙂
As for Annan, no he didn’t go public becasue if he went public and the public did not resonds in sufficient numbers (a disticnt possibility considering the history of Yugoslavia) to force a change in policy, Annan would have made the people in control of Western governments look bad. That, in tunr, would have made help for Rwanda impossible, and would have made getting help for the next Rwanda even more difficult. It was the nuclear option, and Annan could not be sure it wouldn’t blow up the UNs abality to do even the little it could in situations like Rwanda.
April 2nd, 2004 at 6:48 pm
I was very angry.
Its a fucking web page man. Calm down.