CLARKE APOLOGIZES, BUT NOT FOR EVERYTHING -- Blood On Hands Of Clintonistas

http://www.iconoclast.ca/NewPage11.asp ^ | MARK STEYN

[Apolitical]

General Romeo Dallaire, the Canadian commander of the 2,500 U.N. peacekeepers, said he could prevent the killing [in Rwanda] if he had 5,000 men. Instead, the Clinton administration blocked him from taking any action and got the blue helmets to pull out.

Why was this? Well, Somalia, of course. When 10 Belgian peacekeepers were hacked to pieces in Rwanda, it reminded the administration of those 18 U.S. servicemen in Mogadishu. As Samantha Power writes in her book A Problem From Hell: ''The news from Rwanda only confirmed a deep skepticism about the viability of UN deployments. Clarke believed that another U.N. failure could doom relations between Congress and the United Nations. He also sought to shield the president from congressional and public criticism.''

What was that name again? ''Clarke''? Who's that?

Turns out it's Mister Apology himself, Richard Clarke. He was the guy in charge of Rwandan policy for the Clinton team and, as far as I can tell, unlike the Pain-Feeler, he feels not even a twinge of pro forma remorse......

[Apolitical]

More damning info on the NY Times' favorite fella.

[binger]

[Heff]

Does anyone mind if say "Clarke" instead of "Clymer"??

[Cuttnhorse]

Great article. Stein is exactly right about how this type of massacre is exactly the sort of thing the UN should be able to prevent...or at least slow down.

Stein should have mentioned who the US's representative to the UN was during this sorry affair. None other than Maddy, (are you the cleaning lady?) Albright.

[Aura Of The Blade]

Dallaire is a nut job on meds. He cracked up and has lost his ability to rationalize.

[Happy2BMe]

The blood of those mutilated in Rwanda are on the conscience of Clarke and Clinton.

So there's no problem here at all.

[alloysteel]

Dallaire may be a nut job. But a nut job who glimpsed the total surrender in the actions of the regime of the "Former Occupant of the Oval Office, 1993-2001". If there was ever a moral reason for intervention in the world, it was in Rwanda, scene of one of the most devastating and bloody genocides the world has known, the more so because it was mutual. It is not known if 5,000 armed troops, or 50,000, could have kept the two factions from each others' throats. Nobody was ready to make the hard decision.

We all knew that the "Former Occupant of the Oval Office, 1993-2001" loathed and despised the very existence of armed forces anywhere, and thought them fit for no more than indentured servitude, acting as butlers at state dinners or passing out relief supplies in some distant and beleagured locale. He had no concept of using the military as a means of extending the power and influence of the United States or even the United Nations. That was exclusively the domain of diplomacy, and all good men will bow to the protocols set in sober and reasoned discourse.

But not all the people with whom a President of the United States deals with are good men, nor are they sober and reasonable. Sometimes, diplomacy fails, and the way the "Former Occupant of the Oval Office, 1993-2001" exercised the skills, it was doomed to fail frequently.

Danged Democrats can't fight a war, they can't keep the peace, they can't run a meeting with civility, and one suspects, they can't apply even simple logic.

[nothingnew]

This is a great (excerpt) you posted. I really (excerpt) it!

Keep up the good (excerpt).

FMCDH

[doberville]

'Landreau. . .'

[Aura Of The Blade]

If there was ever a moral reason for intervention in the world, it was Rwanda

I agree, but at the same time, I don't think it's America's job to police the world.

It is not known if 5,000 armed troops, or 50,000 could have kept the two factions from each other's throats

Dellaire undoubtably feels enormous guilt over what happened in Rwanda and that 5,000 troops would have changed the situation. Sadly, Africa is a deeply troubled continent and like you, I'm not sure 5,000 or more troops would made the difference. For Dellaire, Rwanda ended his military career and he'll always be struggling with, what if?

[Ima Lurker]

You say tomato, I say tomahto :)

[arasina]

Man, I love Mark Steyn. Particularly this little nugget:

Bill Clinton felt their pain. Retrospectively. In 1998, on his Grand Apology Tour of Africa, a whirlwind tour of whirlwind apologies for slavery, the Cold War, you name it, he touched down in Kigali and apologized for the Rwandan genocide. ''When you look at those children who greeted us,'' he said, biting his lip, as is his wont, ''how could anyone say they did not want those children to have a chance to have their own children?''

This is what the media and leftists want from Bush. Apologize and then everything will be hunky dory.

[highlander_UW]

There seems to be no end to the lack of morality endemic to the Clinton years. I feel very sorry for him. It doesn't look like he's going to have a very good time standing before his maker.

[XHogPilot]

Danged Democrats can't fight a war, they can't keep the peace, they can't run a meeting with civility, and one suspects, they can't apply even simple logic.

The Democratic Party simply represents "the rule of the mob". It explains (almost) everything.