There is little doubt that Bubba could have stopped it but didn't.
Thanks again Bubba, on behalf of a million people killed because you were too busy getting BJ's.
2006-09-30 07:46:06 · 18 answers · asked by marceldev29 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Clinton didn't care.
All he ever cared about was his own personal pleasure.
He should be in prison for a number of reasons.
He could have stopped the slaughter in Rwanda, but he just didn't care.
2006-09-30 07:49:38 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
I would like to ask why so many people use this forum to Bash American Presidents, Don't get me wrong I am not a Clinton fan but to tell the truth at the time Clinton was not the King of Rwanda.
My answer is No
2006-09-30 07:53:02 · answer #2 · answered by dam 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't know what BJs are, but Bill Clinton was a very inept president. If I were in office, I could never just watch something like that happen in th world. It was awful. Like seeing the holocaust all over again. It's going on in Sudan right now to. Muslims from the north are raiding the mostly Christian south and killing off thousands. Since Christians are only 12.5 percent of Sudan, there'll be no stopping them. God Bless the Souls of those who died!
2006-09-30 07:49:13 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Should Bush face international tribunal for failing to stop the suffering in Darfur?
2006-09-30 07:51:49 · answer #4 · answered by farahwonderland2005 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No more than should Bush or Kofi Annan be put on trial for allowing the genocide in Sudan to continue today.
2006-09-30 07:47:14 · answer #5 · answered by thewordofrashi 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Actually it should be Kofi Annan. He stopped Executive Outcomes a mercenary company from South Africa that was ready to deploy from going. They would have stablized the country with less bloodshed than what happened.
2006-09-30 07:51:50 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
As long as democrats have any say, Saint Bubba will get away with nearly anything. Now, let a Republican do something, and they will be foaming at the mouth...
2006-09-30 07:49:04 · answer #7 · answered by Yes 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No. The Republican Congress at the time that forced him not to probably should though!
Oh, and mr Yes...you really need to get a grip on reality!!! What century are you living in? What gives you any impression that the Dems have had any power anytime in the last 26 years? Republicans have had control over at least two branches of government for all of that time, and have control EVERY SINGLE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT AND ALL MAINSTREAM MEDIA!!!
2006-09-30 07:50:35 · answer #8 · answered by corwynwulfhund 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
hmm I think he did ok as pres. Just kind of wonder when did the USA become responcible for rawanda ? Did we take over a country and someone forget to tell me?................Ok
2006-09-30 07:49:16 · answer #9 · answered by The gr8t alien 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Only if Bush goes with him to answer for Darfur
2006-09-30 07:48:36 · answer #10 · answered by answersBeta2.1 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋