Jumping To Conclusions

I guess George Bush is just following the lead of Bill Clinton. It seems like there was a real massacre in Africa that he managed to ignore. You do remember the Hutu-led genocide in 1994 in Rwanda, don't you? How does 1/2 million dead strike you? Why didn't saint Bill intervene?

"Then, forgodsakes, why aren't we in Liberia?"

Obviously, because we've got our hands full right now. Also, Liberia is is a situation that the UN, with contingents from West Africa and elswhere, should be able to handle. Iraq clearly was (and is) not.

Let's stipulate that Kofi Annan is a better man today than he was in 1994 (Rwanda), and that his current pleas for action are genuine. Then let him expend whatever moral capital he has on marshalling the UN troops and resources necessary to peacekeep in Liberia.

I don't doubt that US troops will see some action, in any event. But if the UN's credibility is ever to be redeemed, it must perform *now*.

BTW Partha, I know about bad Chinese food, but "wonton murder"...? ;]

I think everyone, including Clinton, has conceded that not going into Rwanda was a terrible moral mistake (although he hasn't taken the degree of responsibility that is truly and unfortunately his).

What made going into Rwanda such a positively potential step is that no scenario would leave the United States singly responsible for rebuilding Rwanda. It would have been UN, multilateral operation in which the costs and risks would be shared, and, as such, it would have been legitimate in the view of the American people and our allies.

But remember, that the Republican party would have opposed intervention. Bush came out and said it, as did the House leadership. That opposition helped Clinton and Gore chicken-out in the end.

Where was Saint Gov. Bush then? Why wasn't he demanding intervention? Those questions run both ways.

Liberal Democratic interventionists violated their own values by not intervening in Rwanda. The Bush administration, on the other hand, is just pretending to have values it doesn't actually have, having discovered that Iraq posed no threat to anybody and having offended our allies in his contemptible, arrogant pre-war non-diplomacy.

Er... I meant "potentially positive," not "positively potential."

Saint Bill is no longer relevant. Saint George --whether you agree with him or not-- already has a long track record of putting his money where his mouth is. His hands happen to be a little full right now.

Liberia is a unique opportunity for Kofi Annan to begin to resurrect not only his own sullied reputation, but that of the UN as well. Let the UN do its job.

Above anyone else, it was Kofi Annan and the UN that failed Rwanda. Let them do penance, in Liberia.

What made going into Rwanda such a positively potential step is that no scenario would leave the United States singly responsible for rebuilding Rwanda. It would have been UN, multilateral operation in which the costs and risks would be shared, and, as such, it would have been legitimate in the view of the American people and our allies.

...and, as a consequence, would have been a complete and utter failure.

Where was Saint Gov. Bush then? Why wasn't he demanding intervention? Those questions run both ways.

Amitava, In the first place, Bush was not governor when the massacre took place since he was first elected in November1994, and the massacre took place in April of that year. (Yes, you do have a problem with being loose with the facts). In the second place it is not the job of a governor to set foreign policy. The last I heard, it was the job of the President.

However, what is much more damning is you next statement.

Liberal Democratic interventionists violated their own values by not intervening in Rwanda. The Bush administration, on the other hand, is just pretending to have values it doesn't actually have, having discovered that Iraq posed no threat to anybody and having offended our allies in his contemptible, arrogant pre-war non-diplomacy.

No, not your execrable comment about Bush pretending to have values he doesn't actually have. Is that because only Leftists like yourself can be caring and concerned about others? If so, then your next sentence tells exactly what kind of person you really are. "Iraq posses no threat to anybody." Really? How about all the Iraqis that Saddam has been killing. Or how about Iraq's support for terrorism in Israel? I guess he did pose a threat to some people even if you are not concerned about them.

And of course, he didn't have WMDs. We haven't found them yet so they never existed, right? I guess the 5,000 Kurds that were killed in a 1988 chemical weapons attack on Halabja were all faking it. It was just part of this elaborate ruse of the part of Saddam to make believe that he had chemical weapons, right? It's funny, but everyone, and I do mean everyone (Democrats, the UN, France, Germany, etc.), believed that he had WMDs before the war. I guess they were all lying.