The Truth About America's First "Black" President & Africa-(strong indictment of both Clintons!)

THE RANT.US ^ | JULY 22, 2005 | A.J. DICINTIO

[CHARLITE]

Nicholas Kristof of the NY Times deserves a lot of credit for his recent column titled “Bush, A Friend of Africa,” a piece in which he not only gives President Bush and religious groups “on the ground” in Africa the praise they deserve but also bravely joins the very few Left of Center writers courageous enough to tell the truth about President Clinton’s shameful record regarding a continent in agony.

Although his statement “those who care about Africa tend to think that the appropriate attitude toward President Bush is a medley of fury and contempt” reveals the usual Liberal arrogance, Kristof correctly points out that “Mr. Bush has done much more for Africa than Bill Clinton ever did [with respect to financial and humanitarian aid].”

As for bringing an end to wars that afflict the continent, Mr. Kristof credits the Bush administration for helping to end the war between north and south in Sudan. Having made that observation, Kristof concludes, “. . . that’s more than Mr. Clinton’s response to genocide in Rwanda (which was to issue a magnificent apology afterward).”

So with respect to Africa, what is the record of the nation’s “first Black President,” the great “intellect,” the weepy empath who feels other people’s pain so deeply that he bites his lip to demonstrate his brotherhood with them? The facts will answer that question even as they allow readers to judge for themselves whether or not Clinton’s actions and words with respect to Africa serve as a metaphor for Clinton the man.

Let us begin with Clinton’s apology to Rwanda, which Kristof rightly mocks as “magnificent.” In “Bystanders to Genocide,” Samantha Power exposes the deceitful nature of that apology, first quoting President Clinton himself as he spoke at Rwanda’s Kigali Airport: “We come here today partly in recognition of the fact that we in the United States and the world community did not do as much as we could have and should have done to try to limit what occurred.”

In typical Clintonesque fashion, Mr. Clinton implies that he just didn’t do quite enough “to try to limit what occurred.” But listen to Power’s view of the truth about the Clinton White House: “In reality the United States did much more than fail to send troops. It led a successful effort to remove most of the UN peacekeepers who were already in Rwanda. It aggressively worked to block the subsequent authorization of UN reinforcements. It refused to use its technology to jam radio broadcasts that were a crucial instrument in the coordination and perpetuation of the genocide. And even as, on average, 8,000 Rwandans were being butchered each day, U.S. officials shunned the term ‘genocide,’ for fear of being obliged to act. The United States in fact did virtually nothing ‘to try to limit what occurred.’ Indeed, staying out of Rwanda was an explicit U.S. policy objective.”

If that doesn’t remind you of the distortion of reality evidenced every time Mr. Clinton opens his mouth or when his admirers open theirs to extol his many gifts and virtues, consider these words Clinton uttered that same day: “It may seem strange to you here, especially the many of you who lost members of your family, but all over the world there were people like me sitting in offices, day after day after day, who did not fully appreciate the depth and the speed with which you were being engulfed by this unimaginable terror.”

Imagine, if you can, the stink of those words spoken by the “intelligent” and “wide-ranging” mind of the great “compartmentalizer,” words spoken by the President of the United States in all the ramifications of that title, words which say of the unspeakable brutality which occurred in Rwanda, “I didn’t know what was happening; I really didn’t know.”

Any American capable of drawing a breath knows that doing nothing as 800,000 Rwandans were murdered in 100 days doesn’t represent the Know-Nothing-Do-Nothing-in-Chief’s only instance of moral and intellectual cowardice. But keeping a focus only on Mr. Clinton’s relationship with Africa, let us listen to him as in 2002 he spoke to the 14th International AIDS Conference in Barcelona, Spain, once again apologizing, this time for his inaction regarding the AIDS epidemic ravaging Africa, with these lip-biting words, “Do I wish I could have done more? Yes, but I do not know that I could have done it.”

Could it be true that this “great politician” lacked the confidence even to try to do something about the AIDS epidemic afflicting Africa, or did he look at the numbers and conclude that “Africa doesn’t poll well”? Could it be a lack of confidence that impelled Mr. Clinton to issue the following plea regarding his commitment to work on the global AIDS problem, “I call on you [the delegates] to hold me accountable”? Or was that plea more Clintonian mush Mr. Clinton and the Mrs. routinely serve up to gushing audiences who later will condemn a “vast Right Wing conspiracy” for keeping their heroes from fulfilling their promises?

Speaking of Mrs. Clinton, I note that she delights lately (this past April in New York and recently in Colorado) in comparing President Bush to the freckled simpleton of “What, me worry?” fame. If Mrs. Clinton possessed even an iota of honesty, she would admit that her stream of consciousness periodically gives rise to the image of the stupidly silly Alfred E. Neuman because it symbolizes her husband and her as they (the inventors of the buy one get one free Presidency) sat in the White House for eight years subordinating principle to political expediency, ignoring threats to our national security, abusing the power of the Presidency, and blithely turning their worry-free faces from the horrors befalling the people of Africa. But honesty, we know all too well, has never been a virtue possessed by Mrs. Clinton or her rapaciously duplicitous husband of whom, in the ironic tone perfected by the British, it must be said, “The nation’s first Black President, indeed!”

Comments: ajdicintio@comcast.net

[lifacs]

It is available,for purchase, from the NYT:

EDITORIAL DESK | July 5, 2005, Tuesday

Bush, A Friend Of Africa

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF (NYT) Op-Ed 826 words Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 17 , Column 1

[lifacs]

Found it here.

Outsidethebeltway.com had a link that I think is the entire article.

[Eva]

I found the article, actually it's probably here on FreeRepublic. I remember reading it before. While it does include the quote that was mentioned, it was not really complementary to Bush. The article credits him with doing more for Africa than Clinton, but then states that aid might not be beneficial. Then it goes on to say that some liberal leaning charitable groups are doing more and then if ends with saying that Bush could do more. Typical liberal circle logic.