Posted on 12/25/2004 10:51:43 AM PST by theconservativerepublican
Hollywood Exposes Clinton's Support of African Genocide
So much for the myth of "America's first black president": A new movie reveals that racist Bill Clinton not only did nothing to stop genocide in Rwanda, he also pressured other nations to do nothing.
In a rare case of exposing one of Clinton's greatest scandals, the New York Times today discusses United Artists' "Hotel Rwanda," opening Wednesday, along with former Clinton national security adviser Anthony Lake. Among the appalling truths revealed:
(Excerpt) Read more at theconservativerepublican.com ...
I'll bet Hitlery has got her minions in the cutting room now.
The Clinton Administration also totally ignored the genocide in the Sudan, which continues.
Ironic, I said the same thing two days ago............
Fatal attraction: Democrats and Clinton
The Democrats were stunned by the election of 2004 and are dealing with anger, denial and despair. After having been led to defeat by Albert Gore and John Kerry, they pine for a master politician and despair that they do not have another William Jefferson Clinton, who led them to two successive presidential victories.
However, before the Democrats clone Clinton in order to reclaim the White House, a little assessment may be in order, for it was Clinton who made it possible for the Republicans to gain control of the Congress and the White House. Let us go back in time to examine this statement.
Let us begin with 1992. Let us remember that that year, Clinton did not win the popular vote. Thanks to Ross Perot, the conservative vote was split, enabling Clinton to win the election. This despite his much vaunted ability to communicate and connect with the “ordinary folks”. Right after inauguration, he started making mistakes. His questionable appointments (Kimberly Woods, Zoe Baird, etc) and early policies (healthcare reform, gays in the military, etc) alienated the majority of the public, making it possible for Newt Gingrich to successfully launch his Contract with America. Clinton was directly responsible for the Democrats losing the House of Representatives to the Republicans. And yet, the Democrats adore him.
In office, Clinton did much to go against the Democratic base. He pushed for and signed NAFTA. He paid obeisance to China, till then a Republican specialty (Nixon, Kissinger, and GHW Bush). He instituted the policy of nation building and unilateral intervention (Serbia), setting the precedent of bypassing the UN. He gave token bones to the Democrats (minimum wage, abortion rights, gun control, and drilling in ANWAR) but made no substantive changes to what really mattered to the public at large: social security, genuine health care reform, energy policy not dependent on the Middle East, and terrorism. African-Americans, who called him “our first President”, would be well advised to know that more than one million Africans died in Rwanda while Clinton and Albright fiddled. They would also be well advised to know that President Bush has appointed more African-Americans to cabinet level posts than Clinton. And yet, the Democrats adore him.
The last years of Clinton left an indelible impact on the psyche of Americans. The scandals were too numerous to count. Nothing exemplifies this more than the last minute pardons to convicts. Americans began to feel the moral underpinnings of the country slipping away and began to yearn for an upright President. They wanted a person who said what he meant without nuances (remember, “it depends on what the meaning of ‘is’, is”) and whose demeanor emphasized steadfastness, not slickness or vacillation dictated by opinion polls. Republicans gave America George Bush. Twice. And yet, Democrats adore Clinton.
If Democrats want to reclaim the White House, they need a candidate who is morally upright and steadfast. A candidate who is not afraid of calling himself a liberal and one who does not run away from his own past or philosophy. One who understands American people for who we are, not who Hollywood or elitists wants us to be. And one who is least like William Jefferson Clinton.
Ketan Desai MD Ph.D. author, Germs of War (http://www.booksurge.com)
Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical consultant, www.rxmd.com
bttt
I'd like to see if Clinton is mentioned at all in the film, I'm hoping they had the balls to do so.
They won't care.
_________________________________________
Good thing we're on top of it now...
Hey Kiddo....Merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas :-)
Very good point razoroccam! Your point needs to be shouted out to liberals very often! Well, who am I kidding? They still wont get it.
ping
PING
PING
It's the UN's call. We've tried to get them to make a move. You don't honestly think we're going to take it on ourselves after Iraq?
Yes, the sudan has invested heavily in high tech arms. We know where they are. We can hit them at will from afar, zero troops. That's called leverage and we are not using it. To our shame.
It's not a military question but a political one.
what's amazing is that another cat is getting out of the bag. power hungry monsters always use the poor and the third world like cards to trade.
BTTT
Mark Steyn did a piece on this a while back and in true Steyn-ian brilliance characterized the Clinton attitude toward the genocide as one of "tut, tut, tutsi, goodbye".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.