Fleischer uses Rwanda to justify war in Iraq.

[Martin]

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030312/COCAPLAN//?query=rwanda

But there are depths even Mr. Bush shouldn't be allowed to plumb without rebuttal. This week, his spokesman, Ari Fleischer, reached these limits. Pouring contempt on the UN's record of inaction, Mr. Fleischer said on Monday that, "from the moral point of view, as the world witnessed in Rwanda . . . the UN Security Council will have failed to act once again." In a literal sense, he is dead right; the Security Council did fail miserably in 1994. But his insinuation distorts what happened. With the ninth anniversary of the Rwanda genocide only weeks away, certain truths mustn't become casualties of U.S. spin doctors.
To begin, Mr. Fleischer should review an interview between ABC's Sam Donaldson and Mr. Bush during the 2000 presidential campaign. When Mr. Donaldson asked him what he would do if "God forbid, another Rwanda should take place," Mr. Bush replied: "We should not send our troops to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide outside our strategic interests. . . . I would not send the United States troops into Rwanda."
Second, as Mr. Fleischer must surely know, the Security Council failed to intervene in Rwanda because Washington opposed any such intervention. This was the stance pushed by UN ambassador Madeleine Albright on behalf of the Clinton administration, and the position of Republicans in Congress. A rare moment of U.S. political consensus allowed a clique of Rwandan extremists to orchestrate one of the classical cases of genocide in the 20th century, annihilating some 800,000 Tutsis and thousands of moderate Hutus.
To highlight today's moral irony, America's efforts to prevent the Security Council from intervening in Rwanda was fervently seconded by none other than Britain, then led by John Major. No wonder the world cringes when Tony Blair makes "the moral case" for invading Iraq and when Mr. Fleischer uses the phrase "the moral point of view."
Let me stress that none of this is either esoteric or in dispute. Bill Clinton himself later went to Rwanda and publicly apologized for his failure to act, although he blamed his ignorance for his inaction. He was lying. The truth has been thoroughly documented. A 1999 TV documentary by BBC/PBS featured senior U.S. officials acknowledging that the administration had known exactly what was happening in Rwanda throughout the months of the genocide and deliberately chose to allow it to happen. A report I wrote the following year expanded the evidence, and a knockout blow was delivered last year in Samantha Power's formidable study, A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide.
It is true that many others abandoned Rwanda as well, most notably those passionate opponents of the impending war against Iraq: France and the Roman Catholic Church. Both, with unparalleled influence within Rwanda, could very possibly have stopped the genocide before it began. Neither even tried.
But once the genocide was launched, the U.S. role at the Security Council was decisive. America alone possessed the influence and the resources to mobilize the kind of military force that General Romeo Dallaire, sitting in Rwanda commanding a puny UN military mission, repeatedly begged for. Coming as it did only months after the humiliating deaths of 18 U.S. Rangers in Somalia, with the Republicans denouncing the folly of foreign interventions, Mr. Clinton wasn't prepared to risk losing a single vote over a mere genocide. For domestic political reasons, his administration repeatedly made sure that the Security Council delivered no reinforcements to the UN mission, even going so far as to sabotage attempts to do so. As a result, during the entire 100 days of slaughter, not a single extra soldier or bullet arrived in Rwanda to help Gen. Dallaire stop the slaughter.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030312/COCAPLAN//?query=rwanda

But there are depths even Mr. Bush shouldn't be allowed to plumb without rebuttal. This week, his spokesman, Ari Fleischer, reached these limits. Pouring contempt on the UN's record of inaction, Mr. Fleischer said on Monday that, "from the moral point of view, as the world witnessed in Rwanda . . . the UN Security Council will have failed to act once again." In a literal sense, he is dead right; the Security Council did fail miserably in 1994. But his insinuation distorts what happened. With the ninth anniversary of the Rwanda genocide only weeks away, certain truths mustn't become casualties of U.S. spin doctors.
To begin, Mr. Fleischer should review an interview between ABC's Sam Donaldson and Mr. Bush during the 2000 presidential campaign. When Mr. Donaldson asked him what he would do if "God forbid, another Rwanda should take place," Mr. Bush replied: "We should not send our troops to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide outside our strategic interests. . . . I would not send the United States troops into Rwanda."
Second, as Mr. Fleischer must surely know, the Security Council failed to intervene in Rwanda because Washington opposed any such intervention. This was the stance pushed by UN ambassador Madeleine Albright on behalf of the Clinton administration, and the position of Republicans in Congress. A rare moment of U.S. political consensus allowed a clique of Rwandan extremists to orchestrate one of the classical cases of genocide in the 20th century, annihilating some 800,000 Tutsis and thousands of moderate Hutus.
To highlight today's moral irony, America's efforts to prevent the Security Council from intervening in Rwanda was fervently seconded by none other than Britain, then led by John Major. No wonder the world cringes when Tony Blair makes "the moral case" for invading Iraq and when Mr. Fleischer uses the phrase "the moral point of view."
Let me stress that none of this is either esoteric or in dispute. Bill Clinton himself later went to Rwanda and publicly apologized for his failure to act, although he blamed his ignorance for his inaction. He was lying. The truth has been thoroughly documented. A 1999 TV documentary by BBC/PBS featured senior U.S. officials acknowledging that the administration had known exactly what was happening in Rwanda throughout the months of the genocide and deliberately chose to allow it to happen. A report I wrote the following year expanded the evidence, and a knockout blow was delivered last year in Samantha Power's formidable study, A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide.
It is true that many others abandoned Rwanda as well, most notably those passionate opponents of the impending war against Iraq: France and the Roman Catholic Church. Both, with unparalleled influence within Rwanda, could very possibly have stopped the genocide before it began. Neither even tried.
But once the genocide was launched, the U.S. role at the Security Council was decisive. America alone possessed the influence and the resources to mobilize the kind of military force that General Romeo Dallaire, sitting in Rwanda commanding a puny UN military mission, repeatedly begged for. Coming as it did only months after the humiliating deaths of 18 U.S. Rangers in Somalia, with the Republicans denouncing the folly of foreign interventions, Mr. Clinton wasn't prepared to risk losing a single vote over a mere genocide. For domestic political reasons, his administration repeatedly made sure that the Security Council delivered no reinforcements to the UN mission, even going so far as to sabotage attempts to do so. As a result, during the entire 100 days of slaughter, not a single extra soldier or bullet arrived in Rwanda to help Gen. Dallaire stop the slaughter.

There are quite a few instances where the UN has not done anything. There are many instances where the permanent security council members went to war without UN permission. ONly the US has gotten permission for war from the UN, 4 times.

 

[XMan]

I don't understand your point, Marty. It seems like you're really reaching for something to dig at the United States here, and I neither appreciate it not understand it.

Bill Clinton is no longer President of the United States.

Did he f*ck up by not pressuring the UN to intercede with Rwanda? Yes, he did. But using the fact that the US didn't support it should be of no concern - I mean, golly, the US supports attacking Iraq, and many other members of the security council do not. Where was France in 1994? Where was Russia? Where was Germany? I believe even Canada is a member of the United Nations - why didn't they come to the Security council, as is their right, and ask for something to be done?

The answer is - none of the countries really gave a crap.

Had Bush been in office in 1994, would he have tried to do something about Rwanda? Maybe so, I can't say one way or another. But Fleischer is simply providing an example here of a consequence of the UN's inaction.

We all know which way your bias leans. Give it a rest.

 

[etech]

So the author is saying is because the US and Britain did not do anything in Rwanda the people of Iraq should continue to suffer.

That's wonderful logic there.


ot/

Why does it seem that every country that France was involved in is so fvcked up. VietNam, Ivory Coast, Rwanda, Algeria etc.

 

[Sketcher]

eh, I think there's more of import here than whether the U.S. effort is to liberate Iraq and free their people. (though I don't know why you would tie the hands of a nation just because at one point in time a statement was made to stay out of similar issues).

How about making sure that Saddam's reach and support of terrorism doesn't end up in our front yards again as it did on 9/11.

 

[Martin]

cant you see something wrong with the picture?

Bush says UN security council is a failure because it didn't act during rwanda, but it was the US was part of the reason it failed. The argument is ridiculous!

 

[SuperTool]

Did you guys even read the article?

2000: To begin, Mr. Fleischer should review an interview between ABC's Sam Donaldson and Mr. Bush during the 2000 presidential campaign. When Mr. Donaldson asked him what he would do if "God forbid, another Rwanda should take place," Mr. Bush replied: "We should not send our troops to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide outside our strategic interests. . . . I would not send the United States troops into Rwanda."

2003: Pouring contempt on the UN's record of inaction, Mr. Fleischer said on Monday that, "from the moral point of view, as the world witnessed in Rwanda . . . the UN Security Council will have failed to act once again."

You fail to see the hypocrisy?

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
cant you see something wrong with the picture?

Bush says UN security council is a failure because it didn't act during rwanda, but it was the US was part of the reason it failed. The argument is ridiculous!

Yours is a straw man argument . . . ! It wasn't the United States' fault that the measure failed, rather, it was the fault of the administration AT THAT TIME. How is an entirely different set of people running things not a sufficienct enough change for you? For Pete's sake, do you get off on being an obstinate prick?

EDIT . . . . you know, you have every right to hold to your opinion. But every damn thread you post is a slam on my country, and frankly, I'm a little sick and tired of it.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Did you guys even read the article?

2000: To begin, Mr. Fleischer should review an interview between ABC's Sam Donaldson and Mr. Bush during the 2000 presidential campaign. When Mr. Donaldson asked him what he would do if "God forbid, another Rwanda should take place," Mr. Bush replied: "We should not send our troops to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide outside our strategic interests. . . . I would not send the United States troops into Rwanda."

2003: Pouring contempt on the UN's record of inaction, Mr. Fleischer said on Monday that, "from the moral point of view, as the world witnessed in Rwanda . . . the UN Security Council will have failed to act once again."

You fail to see the hypocrisy?

He didn't say that he wouldn't support France from sending troops in there.

Iraq is partially a problem of the US. We did help arm Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war. Of course so did France, Germany and Russia but that is beside the point which is the US is willing to clean up that mess before Saddam gets even more nasty weapons. Now is the time to do it, not after he gets them.

 

[Sketcher]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Did you guys even read the article?

2000: To begin, Mr. Fleischer should review an interview between ABC's Sam Donaldson and Mr. Bush during the 2000 presidential campaign. When Mr. Donaldson asked him what he would do if "God forbid, another Rwanda should take place," Mr. Bush replied: "We should not send our troops to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide outside our strategic interests. . . . I would not send the United States troops into Rwanda."

2003: Pouring contempt on the UN's record of inaction, Mr. Fleischer said on Monday that, "from the moral point of view, as the world witnessed in Rwanda . . . the UN Security Council will have failed to act once again."

You fail to see the hypocrisy?

First of all, you're comparing campaign "statements" of one party to the "action/inaction" of a different White House. Bush's statement of avoidance of policing the world without due strategic necessity is not the same as Clinton's intentional avoidance of political commitment to maintain voting support. Read it again, this time try not to get thrown off the road by the speed bumps.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Did you guys even read the article?

2000: To begin, Mr. Fleischer should review an interview between ABC's Sam Donaldson and Mr. Bush during the 2000 presidential campaign. When Mr. Donaldson asked him what he would do if "God forbid, another Rwanda should take place," Mr. Bush replied: "We should not send our troops to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide outside our strategic interests. . . . I would not send the United States troops into Rwanda."

2003: Pouring contempt on the UN's record of inaction, Mr. Fleischer said on Monday that, "from the moral point of view, as the world witnessed in Rwanda . . . the UN Security Council will have failed to act once again."

You fail to see the hypocrisy?

He didn't say that he wouldn't support France from sending troops in there.

Iraq is partially a problem of the US. We did help arm Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war. Of course so did France, Germany and Russia but that is beside the point which is the US is willing to clean up that mess before Saddam gets even more nasty weapons. Now is the time to do it, not after he gets them.

And that is a separate argument about the merits of Iraq war, but Ari tried to criticize UN for doing exactly what his boss, Dubya said he would have done in their shoes. Hence hypocrisy.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Sketcher

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Did you guys even read the article?

2000: To begin, Mr. Fleischer should review an interview between ABC's Sam Donaldson and Mr. Bush during the 2000 presidential campaign. When Mr. Donaldson asked him what he would do if "God forbid, another Rwanda should take place," Mr. Bush replied: "We should not send our troops to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide outside our strategic interests. . . . I would not send the United States troops into Rwanda."

2003: Pouring contempt on the UN's record of inaction, Mr. Fleischer said on Monday that, "from the moral point of view, as the world witnessed in Rwanda . . . the UN Security Council will have failed to act once again."

You fail to see the hypocrisy?

First of all, you're comparing campaign "statements" of one party to the "action/inaction" of a different White House. Bush's statement of avoidance of policing the world without due strategic necessity is not the same as Clinton's intentional avoidance of political commitment to maintain voting support. Read it again, this time try not to get thrown off the road by the speed bumps.

Looks like you got thrown off the road by the bumps, not me. Where did I mention Clinton admin in my post?
I am comparing campaign "statemetns" of one party to current "statements" of the same party, and not the "action/inaction" of a different White House.
Learn how to read, buddy, then we can debate.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: X-Man
you know, you have every right to hold to your opinion. But every damn thread you post is a slam on my country, and frankly, I'm a little sick and tired of it.

Are you sick and tired of sexy redheads?. I'm really sorry if you are.

 

[dexvx]

Go read the UN charter.

It specifically states that the UN will not do ANYTHING if the crisis is an internal matter (civil war, etc). This is no ones fault; it was part of the Cold War era where the USA did not want the USSR to topple weak democracies and the USSR did not want the USA to topple weak Communist countries. IMO this needs to be changed.

And FYI, the Ivory Coast government has a defensive treaty with France that says if rebels are there to overthrow the government, then France will have to be obliged to send in troops. I doubt the government of Iraq is asking the US to come at them. If the US does in fact invade, it would be the first time a permanent SC member violated the charter. The last time it had come this close was the late 1950s. France and Britain wanted to invade Egypt over the Suez canal, and ironically the USSR and USA vetoed it.

 

[Infos]

God there's a bunch of children on the board tonight. They're really sobbing up a storm.
This article was very well written but afterall you can't expect them to read it.
They'd rather vent as they attempt to defend their king of hypocrisy and usurper of the throne.

 

[Sketcher]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Sketcher

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Did you guys even read the article?

2000: To begin, Mr. Fleischer should review an interview between ABC's Sam Donaldson and Mr. Bush during the 2000 presidential campaign. When Mr. Donaldson asked him what he would do if "God forbid, another Rwanda should take place," Mr. Bush replied: "We should not send our troops to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide outside our strategic interests. . . . I would not send the United States troops into Rwanda."

2003: Pouring contempt on the UN's record of inaction, Mr. Fleischer said on Monday that, "from the moral point of view, as the world witnessed in Rwanda . . . the UN Security Council will have failed to act once again."

You fail to see the hypocrisy?

First of all, you're comparing campaign "statements" of one party to the "action/inaction" of a different White House. Bush's statement of avoidance of policing the world without due strategic necessity is not the same as Clinton's intentional avoidance of political commitment to maintain voting support. Read it again, this time try not to get thrown off the road by the speed bumps.

Looks like you got thrown off the road by the bumps, not me. Where did I mention Clinton admin in my post?
I am comparing campaign "statemetns" of one party to current "statements" of the same party, and not the "action/inaction" of a different White House.
Learn how to read, buddy, then we can debate.

You didn't mention "Clinton" but your argument is based on the inaction of Clinton's Whitehouse. Fleischer is referring to the Ineffectiveness of the U.N.. Accusing Fleischer of being hypocritical by accusing the U.N. is far reaching. Bush's campaign statement of 2000 is in regard to political interests - not wholesale policing of the world. There was significant vested political interest in Rawanda and Somalia, but Clinton's Whitehouse preferred to be popular at the expense of humanity.

Sure, there's an argument if you take Bush's campaign quote out of context and and apply it to Fleischer's dissertation on the U.N. So they're members of the same party? So what.

 

[ManSnake]

Originally posted by: Sketcher

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Sketcher

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Did you guys even read the article?

2000: To begin, Mr. Fleischer should review an interview between ABC's Sam Donaldson and Mr. Bush during the 2000 presidential campaign. When Mr. Donaldson asked him what he would do if "God forbid, another Rwanda should take place," Mr. Bush replied: "We should not send our troops to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide outside our strategic interests. . . . I would not send the United States troops into Rwanda."

2003: Pouring contempt on the UN's record of inaction, Mr. Fleischer said on Monday that, "from the moral point of view, as the world witnessed in Rwanda . . . the UN Security Council will have failed to act once again."

You fail to see the hypocrisy?

First of all, you're comparing campaign "statements" of one party to the "action/inaction" of a different White House. Bush's statement of avoidance of policing the world without due strategic necessity is not the same as Clinton's intentional avoidance of political commitment to maintain voting support. Read it again, this time try not to get thrown off the road by the speed bumps.

Looks like you got thrown off the road by the bumps, not me. Where did I mention Clinton admin in my post?
I am comparing campaign "statemetns" of one party to current "statements" of the same party, and not the "action/inaction" of a different White House.
Learn how to read, buddy, then we can debate.

You didn't mention "Clinton" but your argument is based on the inaction of Clinton's Whitehouse. Fleischer is referring to the Ineffectiveness of the U.N.. Accusing Fleischer of being hypocritical by accusing the U.N. is far reaching. Bush's campaign statement of 2000 is in regard to political interests - not wholesale policing of the world. There was significant vested political interest in Rawanda and Somalia, but Clinton's Whitehouse preferred to be popular at the expense of humanity.

Sure, there's an argument if you take Bush's campaign quote out of context and and apply it to Fleischer's dissertation on the U.N. So they're members of the same party? So what.

I like cheese, do you want some also?

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Sketcher

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Sketcher

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Did you guys even read the article?

2000: To begin, Mr. Fleischer should review an interview between ABC's Sam Donaldson and Mr. Bush during the 2000 presidential campaign. When Mr. Donaldson asked him what he would do if "God forbid, another Rwanda should take place," Mr. Bush replied: "We should not send our troops to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide outside our strategic interests. . . . I would not send the United States troops into Rwanda."

2003: Pouring contempt on the UN's record of inaction, Mr. Fleischer said on Monday that, "from the moral point of view, as the world witnessed in Rwanda . . . the UN Security Council will have failed to act once again."

You fail to see the hypocrisy?

First of all, you're comparing campaign "statements" of one party to the "action/inaction" of a different White House. Bush's statement of avoidance of policing the world without due strategic necessity is not the same as Clinton's intentional avoidance of political commitment to maintain voting support. Read it again, this time try not to get thrown off the road by the speed bumps.

Looks like you got thrown off the road by the bumps, not me. Where did I mention Clinton admin in my post?
I am comparing campaign "statemetns" of one party to current "statements" of the same party, and not the "action/inaction" of a different White House.
Learn how to read, buddy, then we can debate.

You didn't mention "Clinton" but your argument is based on the inaction of Clinton's Whitehouse. Fleischer is referring to the Ineffectiveness of the U.N.. Accusing Fleischer of being hypocritical by accusing the U.N. is far reaching. Bush's campaign statement of 2000 is in regard to political interests - not wholesale policing of the world. There was significant vested political interest in Rawanda and Somalia, but Clinton's Whitehouse preferred to be popular at the expense of humanity.

Sure, there's an argument if you take Bush's campaign quote out of context and and apply it to Fleischer's dissertation on the U.N. So they're members of the same party? So what.

You are taking my quote out of context. It's not based on inaction of Clinton admin. It's based on Bush's statement in 2000, and Ari's statement in 2003.
Fleischer didn't just referr to UN inefectiveness. He criticized them for doing exactly what his boss said he would do. It's not far reaching at all to call that hypocrisy. Bush campaign statement of 2000 is precisely about the same Rwanda genocide that Fleischer is reffering to now. So it's not apples and oranges. And I still don't understand what the "significant vested political interest" in Rwanda was?
And do you think it's a coincidence that there is a White House seal behind Ari when he speaks? You think it just happenned to be there? NO. Ari and Bush are not just members of the same party. Ari is Bush's spokesman. He speaks on behalf of Bush.

 

[Sketcher]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Sketcher

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Sketcher

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Did you guys even read the article?

2000: To begin, Mr. Fleischer should review an interview between ABC's Sam Donaldson and Mr. Bush during the 2000 presidential campaign. When Mr. Donaldson asked him what he would do if "God forbid, another Rwanda should take place," Mr. Bush replied: "We should not send our troops to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide outside our strategic interests. . . . I would not send the United States troops into Rwanda."

2003: Pouring contempt on the UN's record of inaction, Mr. Fleischer said on Monday that, "from the moral point of view, as the world witnessed in Rwanda . . . the UN Security Council will have failed to act once again."

You fail to see the hypocrisy?

First of all, you're comparing campaign "statements" of one party to the "action/inaction" of a different White House. Bush's statement of avoidance of policing the world without due strategic necessity is not the same as Clinton's intentional avoidance of political commitment to maintain voting support. Read it again, this time try not to get thrown off the road by the speed bumps.

Looks like you got thrown off the road by the bumps, not me. Where did I mention Clinton admin in my post?
I am comparing campaign "statemetns" of one party to current "statements" of the same party, and not the "action/inaction" of a different White House.
Learn how to read, buddy, then we can debate.

You didn't mention "Clinton" but your argument is based on the inaction of Clinton's Whitehouse. Fleischer is referring to the Ineffectiveness of the U.N.. Accusing Fleischer of being hypocritical by accusing the U.N. is far reaching. Bush's campaign statement of 2000 is in regard to political interests - not wholesale policing of the world. There was significant vested political interest in Rawanda and Somalia, but Clinton's Whitehouse preferred to be popular at the expense of humanity.

Sure, there's an argument if you take Bush's campaign quote out of context and and apply it to Fleischer's dissertation on the U.N. So they're members of the same party? So what.

You are taking my quote out of context. It's not based on inaction of Clinton admin. It's based on Bush's statement in 2000, and Ari's statement in 2003.
Fleischer didn't just referr to UN inefectiveness. He criticized them for doing exactly what his boss said he would do. It's not far reaching at all to call that hypocrisy. Bush campaign statement of 2000 is precisely about the same Rwanda genocide that Fleischer is reffering to now. So it's not apples and oranges. And I still don't understand what the "significant vested political interest" in Rwanda was?
And do you think it's a coincidence that there is a White House seal behind Ari when he speaks? You think it just happenned to be there? NO. Ari and Bush are not just members of the same party. Ari is Bush's spokesman. He speaks on behalf of Bush.

I'm taking your quote out of context? Chicken and Egg argument. You're still mis-quoting Bush's intentions at Fleischer's expense. It's not the same argument. I'm not saying Fleischer couldn't have made a better argument or used a less questionable reference - but neither he or anyone else who reads more than just the quote referenced doubts that Bush would have been involved. Bush's statement was campaign oriented to assure voters he would not unecessarily commit U.S. resources to policing the world. The caveate "outside our strategic interests" is the qualifier. It's apples and orange if you read and understand the motivation in context. It's apples and apples if you read and don't look past the political punditry.

 

[ManSnake]

Originally posted by: Sketcher

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Sketcher

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Sketcher

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Did you guys even read the article?

2000: To begin, Mr. Fleischer should review an interview between ABC's Sam Donaldson and Mr. Bush during the 2000 presidential campaign. When Mr. Donaldson asked him what he would do if "God forbid, another Rwanda should take place," Mr. Bush replied: "We should not send our troops to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide outside our strategic interests. . . . I would not send the United States troops into Rwanda."

2003: Pouring contempt on the UN's record of inaction, Mr. Fleischer said on Monday that, "from the moral point of view, as the world witnessed in Rwanda . . . the UN Security Council will have failed to act once again."

You fail to see the hypocrisy?

First of all, you're comparing campaign "statements" of one party to the "action/inaction" of a different White House. Bush's statement of avoidance of policing the world without due strategic necessity is not the same as Clinton's intentional avoidance of political commitment to maintain voting support. Read it again, this time try not to get thrown off the road by the speed bumps.

Looks like you got thrown off the road by the bumps, not me. Where did I mention Clinton admin in my post?
I am comparing campaign "statemetns" of one party to current "statements" of the same party, and not the "action/inaction" of a different White House.
Learn how to read, buddy, then we can debate.

You didn't mention "Clinton" but your argument is based on the inaction of Clinton's Whitehouse. Fleischer is referring to the Ineffectiveness of the U.N.. Accusing Fleischer of being hypocritical by accusing the U.N. is far reaching. Bush's campaign statement of 2000 is in regard to political interests - not wholesale policing of the world. There was significant vested political interest in Rawanda and Somalia, but Clinton's Whitehouse preferred to be popular at the expense of humanity.

Sure, there's an argument if you take Bush's campaign quote out of context and and apply it to Fleischer's dissertation on the U.N. So they're members of the same party? So what.

You are taking my quote out of context. It's not based on inaction of Clinton admin. It's based on Bush's statement in 2000, and Ari's statement in 2003.
Fleischer didn't just referr to UN inefectiveness. He criticized them for doing exactly what his boss said he would do. It's not far reaching at all to call that hypocrisy. Bush campaign statement of 2000 is precisely about the same Rwanda genocide that Fleischer is reffering to now. So it's not apples and oranges. And I still don't understand what the "significant vested political interest" in Rwanda was?
And do you think it's a coincidence that there is a White House seal behind Ari when he speaks? You think it just happenned to be there? NO. Ari and Bush are not just members of the same party. Ari is Bush's spokesman. He speaks on behalf of Bush.

I'm taking your quote out of context? Chicken and Egg argument. You're still mis-quoting Bush's intentions at Fleischer's expense. It's not the same argument. I'm not saying Fleischer couldn't have made a better argument or used a less questionable reference - but neither he or anyone else who reads more than just the quote referenced doubts that Bush would have been involved. Bush's statement was campaign oriented to assure voters he would not unecessarily commit U.S. resources to policing the world. The caveate "outside our strategic interests" is the qualifier. It's apples and orange if you read and understand the motivation in context. It's apples and apples if you read and don't look past the political punditry.

That's a great critique there, you summed it up really well...


regarding your own post!!!