The Bill Clinton Foundation-revisited:

Derryck · Post by **Derryck** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 6:50 am

Aug 04-2005.

The Clinton Foundation-revisited:

Even though I admire the efforts that former president Bill Clinton is doing for humanity lately, I still cannot ignore the time when thousands were dying en-mass in Rwanda and the United States did not intervene to end the mass slaughter there. That was under his watch!

When AIDS was ravishing millions in the continent of Africa, Bill Clinton did not aggressively inject money or medication to help alleviate the pain, suffering and death of those desperately poor and un-developed states in Africa, that was reeking under this pandemic.

It was under his watch that The Immigration Laws that were introduced in 1996-97 that inhibited legal residence, eg P.R.U.C.O.L. (Persons Residing Under Color Of Law): Many of whom for various reasons, overstayed their time here in America, and was now seeking permanent resident status. His signing of that law, debarred most of them from ever gaining that legal status without having to return to their home countries, and risk death, poverty, shame or worse!

It was under Bill Clinton's presidency that the 'Don't Ask-Don't Tell" Act. became statute, resulting in several deaths & beatings of Gay men, and several dis-honourable discharges of Homosexuals from the US military. Even though historically, closeted homosexual military personnel have been dreadfully injured & killed in World war 2, The Korean War, The Vietnam War, Desert Storm, and possibly the wars in Afghanistan & Iraq currently. So Bill Clinton is no good legacy for the Gay community, and least of all, The Communities Of Color!

The only illegals eligible for legal residence in the USA, that manage to float in, sail in, drop in, or reach the shores of America, are the Cubans, and they are entitled to Automatic Legal Residence Status? This kind of differential treatment of humans, coupled with political convenience, bothers me greatly. And I wonder if it is only after Bill Clinton left the White House, that he became human again!

Om Shanti.

Derryck S. Griffith.

Political Educator & Advocate.

http://profiles.yahoo.com/mimbari2003

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 7:00 am

Has he "become human again," or is it only that his standard political expedience coincidentally looks human?

MicahLorain · Post by **MicahLorain** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 8:42 pm

No one would have clamored for US military involvment in an African civil war, and no one did but a smattering of human rights groups that are widely despised by the very people claiming Clinton allowed genocide in Rwanda. Marines and thousands of troops landing in Rwanda in the 90's to stop genocide?? Come on. No one is suggesting Bush send troops to Sudan to stop the genocide that's been going on there for 30 years. No troops to Cambodia either under Ford and Carter. Entering into conflicts involving non oil producing countries is not how capitalist democracy works. Vietnam happened as a result of the Cold War. Using other, poorer countries to fight proxy wars with the other superpower. How Brave! Clinton is an ATM for the corporate run and corrupted Democratic Party. Let's just hope those cheeseburgers finally get to him.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Aug 06, 2005 7:02 am

Micah, damn glad to see you again. :-6

I don't believe that the people that complain about our lack of involvement truly think we should throw American lives (or anyone else's) into the middle of civil wars to prevent slaughter. They are simply pointing at those situations to show hypocrisy in our policies. "Shame on you to send the military to save oil supplies and not to save lives." or some such.

Those same people would have been apalled if America waded into Rwanda to force American values on another sovreign nation.

MicahLorain · Post by **MicahLorain** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 2:06 pm

Accountable wrote: Micah, damn glad to see you again. :-6

I don't believe that the people that complain about our lack of involvement truly think we should throw American lives (or anyone else's) into the middle of civil wars to prevent slaughter. They are simply pointing at those situations to show hypocrisy in our policies. "Shame on you to send the military to save oil supplies and not to save lives." or some such.

Those same people would have been apalled if America waded into Rwanda to force American values on another sovreign nation.
I agree completely. Another question is Could we have stopped the Rwanda tragedy? I think not. Only the French still send troops to blood soaked African conflicts, a legacy of their colonial occupation. The US is no where near tough enough to wade into Africa. Even primitive battered states like Somalia proved too much for our fighting best. BTW, Thank You for the Welcome!:rolleyes:

MicahLorain · Post by **MicahLorain** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 2:42 pm

Why yes Flopstock I was vacationing in North Korea! Beautiful country, great food and zero crime!! My Kodak was confiscated in Pyongyang airport so no photos.

It really would be nice if humanity were developed enough to maintain an international military designed specifically to stop the Sudan's and Cambodia's and Rwanda's. Not to mention the 3Million killed in the DR of Congo in the last 10 years. Unfortunately capitalism is corrupted by the Almighty Dollar and this force would be used to plunder the wealth of poorer nations. The UN was a great concept but had it's testicles removed by the ever terrified US, fearing the blue helmets may invade!:wah: We humans will see more genocides and atrocities, no doubt. Africans have the most to fear.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 3:27 pm

MicahLorain wrote: [...] Only the French still send troops to blood soaked African conflicts, a legacy of their colonial occupation. [...] BTW, Thank You for the Welcome!:rolleyes:
Happy to. Too much homogeneity is bad for the soul.

As for the French. I do believe that they are the ones to blame for most of the carnage you speak of. They are certainly responsible for Rwanda.

And the UN was a good idea so long as the ambassadors remained ambassadors, not legislators and police.

MicahLorain · Post by **MicahLorain** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 3:39 pm

Accountable wrote: Happy to. Too much homogeneity is bad for the soul.

As for the French. I do believe that they are the ones to blame for most of the carnage you speak of. They are certainly responsible for Rwanda.

And the UN was a good idea so long as the ambassadors remained ambassadors, not legislators and police.
The Belgians held Rwanda in colonial occupation. Also the former Zaire, now DR of Congo, another bloodbath situation that is still percolating. They were notoriously brutal slavemasters, with the Dutch right behind. The French held most of North Africa and some sub-Saharan states. They recently sent troops to Cote de Ivoire, Burkina Faso and Chad. You gotta give it to them for having the cajones to protect threatened populations and vital infrastructure in such a volatile region. Regarding homogenity; Conservatives are only interesting for a limited amount of time before you find them mind numbingly dull. Rush drones are So 90's.:yh_loser

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 3:49 pm

MicahLorain wrote: The Belgians held Rwanda in colonial occupation.
It was the Belgians who color-coded the Tutsi and Hutu? I guess I owe France an apology.

[...]Regarding homogenity; Conservatives are only interesting for a limited amount of time before you find them mind numbingly dull. Rush drones are So 90's.:yh_loser
You and conservatives have a lot in common, namely painting with a too-broad brush and running rough-shod over anything outside your narrow blinders.

Havaniceday.