Please tell me this is out of context...

[Slack3r78]

I can't believe even Dubya is this stupid. Maybe he's playing a game with the press to see if he can think up the worst possible answer to any given question.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/20/bush-outside-forces-tend-to-divide-people-up

[fitbabits]

Bush and off-the-cuff thinking do not a happy combination make.

[Johan]

He needs someone to write everything he says publicly.

He also needs someone else to deliver those words, as well!

[IrishWhiskey]

I'm not even outraged that he "learned" this lesson from a museum and not, say anywhere else. Someplace sandy and next to Iran.


I'm disgusted that the lesson he learned from Rwanda, was that if we had sent white people there, things would have gotten worse. It was one of the most one-sided and horrific genocides in human history, where almost a million Tutsi's were killed and the rest fled the country.

And from this he learns, it would be worse if we interfered, and we need to let these people settle their own problems.


Jesus, he's like a President from a Bizarro dimension.

[Delenda]

I don't have much to say on the article at hand, but thinkprogress.org and its user comments are the perfect example of why this thread will not result in an intelligent discussion.

[Schnoogs]

Bush is an idiot...news at 11

[Johan]

Speaking of Rwanda...I want to congratulate President Clinton on dealing with that.

Oh, wait...he didn't. Woopsie me. :D No biggie...just north of half a million dead there, AND the spillover led to the bloodiest war since WW II (still ongoing in the Congo...millions dead).

You win some, you lose some (millions). Oh well. They weren't black enough for our "first black president."

[Darkbase]

wow... that is truly astounding.
Its pretty strange seeing Schnoogs, Johan, and IrishW agreeing on something as well, so GWB at least brings people together! (against him)

[Slack3r78]

I don't have much to say on the article at hand, but thinkprogress.org and its user comments are the perfect example of why this thread will not result in an intelligent discussion.

Hey, like I said, I'm hoping this is ThinkProgress horrifically skewing things. There are a number of rationalizations for not intervening in Darfur that I might disagree with but could see as reasonable, but this? Holy shit.

[IrishWhiskey]

Speaking of Rwanda...I want to congratulate President Clinton on dealing with that.

Oh, wait...he didn't. Woopsie me. :DYup. And he said failing to take action there was the single biggest mistake of his Presidency, and that one day he will be held to account for his failure to stop the carnage.

Whereas when asked of what mistakes he had made thus far, Bush couldn't think of any.

All our leaders are stupid or corrupt to one extent of another. But there are degrees of stupid. This comment just blows my mind. Its like he was watching Hotel Rwanda, and stopped right at the part where the peacekeepers left.

[Johan]

Clinton's degree of stupid in Rwanda: 600,000+ dead, AND millions dead in the Congo as a direct result; and they're still dying there every day (Congo).

Bush's degree of stupid in Iraq: 100,000-300,000+ (depending on your source) dead.

If all lives are equal, Clinton really screwed the pooch to a greater degree.

[Slack3r78]

Clinton's degree of stupid in Rwanda: 600,000+ dead, AND millions dead in the Congo as a direct result; and they're still dying there every day (Congo).

Bush's degree of stupid in Iraq: 100,000-300,000+ (depending on your source) dead.

If all lives are equal, Clinton really screwed the pooch to a greater degree.
While I agree that overlooking Rwanda was a travesty, let's not forget the way that Republicans tried to skewer Clinton for intervening in the active genocide of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, going so far as claiming he was only doing so to distract from the Lewinsky proceedings.

Incidentally, Kosovo just declared independence earlier this week.

[IrishWhiskey]

Bush's degree of stupid in Iraq: 100,000-300,000+ (depending on your source) dead.I'm not going to start an argument on which President is worse (I'm with you on the enormity of Clinton's mistake), but shouldn't we then count the Darfur figures against Bush as well? 300,000 dead, over 2.5 million displaced.

[LongStepMantis]

He needs someone to write everything he says publicly.

He also needs someone else to deliver those words, as well!

He should just delegate all of his authority to others so he can do what he really wants to do.

Sit on the White House lawn in a folding chair with leopard print speedos, wife beater with obligatory mystery stains, and a shotgun.

Yelling "Git off ma land!" *BLAM *BLAM*!

The problem comes in when he tries to think about stuff. Not the right man for that job.

Clinton would be down at the titty bar.

[digitalErich]

I would have respected him more if he had answered with:
"My staff hasn't provided me with a good response to that, next question please."

[Khash]

Speaking of Rwanda...I want to congratulate President Clinton on dealing with that.

Oh, wait...he didn't.
Right, so we should totally give G.W. Bush a free pass on any mistakes he's ever made. Cause really, why should we expect better? It's not like his job is important or anything.

[Johan]

Right, so we should totally give G.W. Bush a free pass on any mistakes he's ever made. Cause really, why should we expect better? It's not like his job is important or anything.

Right, because I totally said, "yo, duuuuuude...give Bush a free pass, maaaaaan!" :p

Gnarly, man! Ridin' the waves!

[Schnoogs]

Right, so we should totally give G.W. Bush a free pass on any mistakes he's ever made. Cause really, why should we expect better? It's not like his job is important or anything.

I don't think that was Johans point at all.

[IrishWhiskey]

I would have respected him more if he had answered with:
"My staff hasn't provided me with a good response to that, next question please."I would have respected him more if he shit himself, yelled "CONFERENCE OVER!" and then proceeded to molest the Lincoln Memorial.

I mean what the hell...


He is now the worst rated (http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/) President in recorded history, at 19% he's lower than Nixon during Watergate, Carter during the hostage crisis, and Clinton during Impeachment. And if there is any justice, comments like this will drive him lower.

[Khash]

Right, because I totally said, "yo, duuuuuude...give Bush a free pass, maaaaaan!" :p

Gnarly, man! Ridin' the waves!
You might as well have.

[Schnoogs]

Yeah Johan...you might as well have...even though that's not what you meant or were even remotely implying you should have just said that. :p

[Oxonian]

Hey, like I said, I'm hoping this is ThinkProgress horrifically skewing things.
Well... they did elide an important word from the quote.
A clear lesson I learned in the museum was that outside forces that tend to divide people up inside their country are unbelievably counterproductive.
The second "that" modifies "outside forces": outside forces are only counterproductive if they "tend to divide people up." Bush would presumably argue that sending troops into Darfur to separate the factions like bickering children would not work, but the troops in Iraq are not trying to impose that sort of segregation.

I think he's wrong and that the argument is at least faintly ridiculous, but there's a wisp of an argument there. Although I really have to endorse Irish's point that Rwanda is possibly the very worst grounds upon which to base that argument. Even if intervention didn't permanently halt the genocide, it would at least put it off for a while. Preserving thousands of lives for a few years is not to be sniffed at.

[Johan]

You might as well have.

Ride the waves?

http://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk/images/riding%20a%20wave_v_Variation_2.jpg

[Oxonian]

Wait a second. I just read the White House transcript (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/02/20080219-6.html). ThinkProgress did take the quote out of context.

Bush was asked:
Thank you. Mr. President, Bill Clinton came here and said he regretted that he wasn't able to do more to stop the genocide here. You have seen the memorial here today, and I'm wondering, what would you tell your successor about America's obligations and also its ability to stop genocide?

And to you, Mr. President, did you raise the issue of Darfur with President Bush? Did you ask him for any further commitment by the United States? And if so, what was it? Thank you.
Bush said:
I would say it's like -- as I explained to this fellow here -- that one of the lessons of the genocide in Rwanda was to take some of the early warnings signs seriously.

Secondly, a clear lesson I learned in the museum was that outside forces that tend to divide people up inside their country are unbelievably counterproductive. In other words, people came from other countries -- I guess you'd call them colonialists -- and they pitted one group of people against another. And an early warning sign was -- and it's hard to have seen it, I readily admit, but I'm talking earlier than 1994, and earlier than the '90s -- was the fact that it become a habit to divide people based upon -- you know, in this case, whether they were Tutsi or Hutu, which eventually led to exploitation.
He then spoke briefly about how the U.S. had a constructive role to play, and added:
You know, as I told you yesterday, I made a decision not to unilaterally send troops into the Sudan. And I still believe it was the right decision, but having done that, if you're a problem solver, you put yourself at the mercy of the decisions of others, in this case, the United Nations. And I'm well known to have spoken out by the slowness of the United Nations. It is -- seems very bureaucratic to me, particularly with people suffering. And one reason I'm so proud to be standing here with this President is that he didn't wait. He said, we want to help. And so we're trying to get forces in, and we'll help.

The third thing is, is that the U.S. will provide -- you know, can provide money and help and training; and we have trained their forces -- helped train their forces. They're good forces to begin with, and they just need a little added value, and we helped.

So I guess the answer to your question -- it's kind of a long-winded approach to take problems seriously before they become acute, and then recognize that there's going to be a slowness in the response if you rely upon international organizations.
I think it's pretty clear that the "outside forces" he was speaking about weren't peacekeepers, but rather the colonial powers who created the African boundaries in the 1960s. He actually specifically praised President Kagame for sending AU troops into the Sudan, and criticized the UN for not acting quickly enough.

Perhaps Bush could have been a little clearer, but I'm not seeing a wildly objectionable sentiment in this.

[Johan]

^^^That's interesting.

Bush is still a mess, but that provides perspective for sure.

[IrishWhiskey]

I think it's pretty clear that the "outside forces" he was speaking about weren't peacekeepers, but rather the colonial powers who created the African boundaries in the 1960s. He actually specifically praised President Kagame for sending AU troops into the Sudan, and criticized the UN for not acting quickly enough.

Perhaps Bush could have been a little clearer, but I'm not seeing a wildly objectionable sentiment in this.Context makes it better but still ridiculous.

Outside interference and nation-building into vassal states is wrong, and was indeed demonstrated by the Belgians efforts in the Congo (the lack of irony here would still be bad).

But the fact that he is bringing up Rwanda as an explanation for why its a good idea to wait and not act unilaterally to stop a genocide, is still insane. The Belgian colonists weren't there to stop a genocide, they intentionally set out to create racial conflict and foster violence between Hutu's and Tutsi's. Unless he thinks people want troops in Darfur to help the genocide, what is he thinking using that part of Rwanda's history as an example, when what came after so refutes his point?


That aside, I support the policy of using the African Union to stop the killing, but right now their primary obstacle keeping them from doing so is funding and logistics. Why isn't Bush helping out more with that?

[Oxonian]

But the fact that he is bringing up Rwanda as an explanation for why its a good idea to to act to stop a genocide and wait for others to help in Darfur, is still insane.
Did Bush really "bring up Rwanda"? He was standing at the Rwanda genocide museum, with the Rwandan President, and a reporter asked him a two-part question.* He answered the first part ("Gee, here's what I learned about Rwanda") and answered the second part ("I'm glad someone else sent troops to the Sudan, because I was a wuss"). He didn't try to connect the two (although the reporter obviously wanted him to).

EDIT: Actually, the reporter asked him to talk about Rwanda, and Kagame to talk about Darfur. Bush leapt in and answered the Darfur question anyway, but I really don't think he was trying to say that intervening in Rwanda would have been counterproductive.

Why isn't Bush helping out more with that?
Because Bush has failed one of the great moral tests of his Presidency. Seriously, I toyed with voting for Joe Biden on this issue.