Clintons, No help to 800,000 Dead Africans in 94', No Real Help to Black America Today

Some believed Bill Clinton's policies of the 90's were good for Blacks. While it is true, the forty-second President of the United States did preside over an economy that was arguably the best in my adult lifetime. But was it the policies of Mr. Clinton or House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s Congress and a GOP controlled Senate that forced Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan to keep interest rates low and to keep spending in check? But still, did William Jefferson Clinton actually lead during this period or was he simply following? Let's examine. Are leaders sidelined while tacitly watching Africa’s Rwandan Tutsis being slaughtered by their extremists counterpart Hutu militia for nearly 100 days? Perhaps Mr. Clinton could have loaned supportive muscle to the Arusha Peace Agreement (APA). But, as the Commander and Chief of the world’s only superpower, should his failing to act during Rwanda’s international crisis eliminate him from being considered a leader or just a detriment to those living on the continent where God first created man? Take John Fitzgerald Kennedy, he sat a tone of leadership with the “we choose to go to the moon not because it is easy but, because it is haurrd (hard).” At 83, James Earl Carter, Jr., (Jimmy Carter) was just in the Middle East last week trying to broker a deal between arch rivals Hamas and Fatah. And although Ronald Reagan’s economic policies was described as voodoo economics, even he, a man that would succumb to Alzheimer in his later years, challenged the Soviet Union in a buffoonery, yet tactful manner. And now, a partial thanks to Nancy Reagan’s Ronnie, America has no military equal. Mr. Clinton, however, if you wanted to be a leader, you would have strong armed the United Nations' Security Council into putting some real troop muscle in APA, not the mere 2,500 troops that was sent, and provide a safe haven for the 800,000 Rwandans that were horrifically bludgeoned to death by a death squad of Huttus using guns and machetes. Why didn't you, Mr. Clinton, the great savior to black America, intervene? You intervened in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It too was a civil conflict where the death toll was less than a third of Rwanda's. You not only failed to publicly denounce the Rwandan genocide, but you were relatively mum on the subject. Was it because of America's 93' embarrassment in Mogadishu, Black Hawk Down? Or was it simply because of the hue of their skin? No? Why were there such opposite policies for Sub-Saharan Africans or Haitians compared to Europeans, Asians or even Cubans that entered into this country? Did the Clinton Administration do anything constructive to change it?

The Clintons of 94' are the same in 2008. Their euphemistic and slurred code language against Barack Obama, a then passive Democratic presidential candidate during the South Carolina primary, proved to be polarizing and divisive as Fox News’ front man Roger Ales and the late Lee Atwaters’ campaign add in 88', Willie Horton.

By the way, where were you Hillary? Did you immediately refute any of your husband's characterization of Mr. Obama? Did you disagree with any of his positions during your eight years as First Lady? If so, have you since gone on record with the National Archives requesting your husband to release all non classified documents for the eight years in the White House? If not, maybe you simply agreed with them. Mrs. Clinton, if you're going to keep fronting the prosperity years of your husband's Administration, you should also take the heat for its mishaps as well. But, we won't go there. Finally, Hillary, if you were asked in a public forum of your whereabouts during the 94' Tutsis massacre, what would you say? Don't ask, don't tell? I know, you decided to wait for a real challenge to bring real peace, Bosnia. Remember, that’s the place where you were dodging all the bullets.