>This isn't by any stretch my terrain of expertise, but ...
Gracious of you to admit.
>that Hitchens undeniably practices a shabby brand of
>palace intrigue journalism masquerading as critical thought,
>_does not_ mean that the jokers at "mediawhoresonline.com" are
>not shameless defenders of Clintonian corporate liberalism.
This second part is obvious I would think.
http://www.sfbg.com/News/35/28/28pc.html This is the link to the Bay Guardian's story on the top 10 "censored" - i.e., buried by the mainstream media - stories of 2000. (Seth Ackerman and Cockburn are mentioned.) #6 is "International report blames U.S. and others for genocide in Rwanda"
>From the report itself:
http://www.oau-oua.org/document/ipep/report/rwanda-e/EN-12-CH.htm
"Boutros-Ghali goes out of his way in his memoir to show that Madeleine Albright was simply being a good Clinton team player throughout this period of betrayed opportunities. She would not have taken her obstructionist positions, “I felt sure, without clear authorization from the White House. As the Rwandan genocide continued, she was apparently just following
orders.”[78] But of course that was exactly the point. As the Clinton Cabinet member directly responsible for the UN, Albright chose to follow orders, even if the consequences for hundreds of thousands of Rwandans were fatal, as it was certain they would be. So far as we can determine, not a single member of any government or any institution most directly responsible for letting the genocide happen has ever resigned on principle..
12.49. In May 1994, five weeks into the slaughter, an influential American journal acknowledged that what was happening in Rwanda was indeed a genocide, a catastrophe far beyond that of Bosnia, which was then at the top of the international agenda. But there would be no US intervention, it accurately predicted, since Rwanda’s “chaos may trigger a parallel disaster in ... Burundi, but nowhere else,” while American neutrality in the Balkans might destabilize “strategically vital parts of the world.”[79]
12.50. With negligible American interests to consider, Clinton was left with the choice between pandering to local political advantage or trying to save an untold number of lives in Rwanda.
12.32.No amount of evidence ever changed the American position. As we will soon see, throughout the genocide, American machinations at the Security Council repeatedly undermined all attempts to strengthen the UN military presence in Rwanda; in the end, not a single additionalnew soldier or piece of military hardware reached the country before the genocide ended.[80] Looking at the record, an American chronicler of the Rwandan genocide bitterly concludes that, “Anybody who believes the words ‘never again’ is deluding themselves dangerously about future holocausts.”[81] In early 2000, as this report was being written, the leading Republican presidential candidate was asked by a television interviewer what he would do as President “if, God forbid, another Rwanda should take place.” George W. Bush replied: “We should not send our troops to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide outside our strategic interest. I would not send the United States troops into Rwanda.”[82] -------
I wonder how people like the folks behind Mediowhoresonline.com deal with information like this. I find it difficult to understand how admirable folks like Nathan Newman and Katha Pollitt can be aware of the Clinton administration's role in the Rwandan genocide and still bash Naderites. Maybe they weren't fully aware.
Peter